- Comcast Cable Commuications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00281 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests challenging the denial of authorization to seek a stay or termination based on Arthrex and the APA.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,621,956 - Comcast Cable Commuications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00239 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests seeking authorization to move to stay or terminate the proceedings based on Arthrex and the APA.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,779,011 - Comcast Cable Commuications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00555 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests seeking authorization to move to stay or terminate the proceedings based on Arthrex and APA arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,668,014 - Comcast Cable Commuications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00290 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests challenging denial of authorization to seek a stay or termination based on Arthrex and APA arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,937,394 - Comcast Cable Commuications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00237 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s requests for rehearing of its denials of authorization to seek a stay or termination, rejecting the Arthrex and APA arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,779,011 - Comcast Cable Commuications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00231 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s requests for rehearing of its denials of authorization to seek a stay or termination, rejecting the Arthrex and APA arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,369,741 - Comcast Cable Commuications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00224 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests challenging denial of authorization to seek a stay or termination based on Arthrex and the APA.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“(1) because the Federal Circuit’s mandate has not issued in Arthrex, the Administrative Patent Judges presiding over the instant proceedings remain unconstitutionally appointed and, therefore, the instant proceedings should be stayed (Reh’g Req. 6–8); (2) the proceedings should be stayed because the Arthrex remedy does not go far enough and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (id. at 9–13 (citing, e.g., Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 90 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019))); and (3) intervention from Congress and agency rulemaking may be necessary to remedy the defect identified in Arthrex, so termination of each of the instant proceedings is warranted (id. at 13–15). Patent Owner’s arguments have been addressed in our denials.6 See, e.g., IPR2019-00224, Paper 28 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020) (quoting Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation”)); IPR2019-00224, Paper 39 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2020) (“[I]t is unclear how the issuance of the mandate in Arthrex would address the alleged APA defect.”). For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument 6 In any event, the issuance of the mandate in Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. moots Patent Owner’s argument that Board judges are unconstitutionally appointed until the mandate in Arthrex issues. See Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2018- 2156 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 78; Mandate, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), ECF No. 75 (relying on Arthrex). Furthermore, in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), ECF No. 115. that denying Patent Owner the opportunity for briefing “itself violates the [APA] because the denial lacks a reasoned basis.” Reh’g Req. 1. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,827,585 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01040 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach or support adding the separately claimed third voltage reference.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentDenied
“We agree with Patent Owner that we should not address the patentability of claim 9 in this Decision. See PO Resp. 63–64. Rather, following Federal Circuit case law, we treat claim 9 as if it never existed. See Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”). Consistent with other Board decisions in which some, but not all, challenged claims have been disclaimed after institution, we address the patentability only of the remaining claims. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00673, Paper 48 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2019) (Final Written Decision); Yamaha Golf Car, Paper 63 at 3; Baker Hughes, Paper 74 at 6, 11–12. We also agree with Patent Owner that we should not enter adverse judgment as to claim 9. See PO Sur-reply 26–27. Arthrex, the case relied on by Petitioner, does not mandate a different outcome. By its terms, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) permits disclaimer to be construed as a request for adverse action when there are “no remaining claim[s] in the trial.” That was the situation in Arthrex. 880 F.3d at 1347 (“Arthrex, Inc. disclaimed all claims that were the subject of the petition.”). Here, in contrast, several claims remain in the trial. Furthermore, Arthrex does not support Petitioner’s patent are disclaimed.” Pet. Reply 27. The Arthrex language quoted by Petitioner compares disclaimer of an “entire patent” under § 42.73(b)(1) with disclaimer of “some of the claims” of the patent (i.e., fewer than all claims in the patent but all challenged claims so there are no remaining claims in the trial) under § 42.73(b)(2). 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither situation is present here when only one claim (claim 9) has been disclaimed and several challenged claims (claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13) remain in the trial.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’207 patent “would have had at least a[n] M.S. degree in electrical engineering and would have at least two years of experience with circuit design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the asserted prior art and adopted Petitioner’s position, which Patent Owner did not oppose in the Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Ipek, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Ipek, however, states that “[f]or purposes of the subject IPR proceedings, I have been asked to employ [Petitioner’s proposed] standard of a person of ordinary skill, but I do not offer the opinion that it is the correct standard.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 19. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience with circuit design. See Inst. Dec. 14; Pet. 17.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the complete record developed during this inter partes review, we again conclude that the “third voltage reference” must be separate from the “second voltage reference.” We begin with the language of claim 1, which recites a first voltage reference, a second voltage reference, and a third voltage reference as separate elements.7 “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The terms “first,” “second,” and “third” are terms used to distinguish separate elements of a claim. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation.”). Although Gillette and 3M address whether such terms impose a numerical or serial limitation, they nevertheless support Patent Owner’s position that enumerated elements typically are not construed to be the same element. See Sur-reply 11–12. Other cases cited by Patent Owner also support its position. See id. at 12 (citing Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935–39 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (construing “first” and “second” disks as separate and discrete disks); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405) (Fed. Cir. 1996)” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art would have sought to reduce power consumption in Takahashi to address the well-known problem of current leakage, and that providing a separate voltage reference for transistor 223 in Takahashi’s Figure 15 (i.e., a third voltage reference) would have achieved that goal. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). But the only evidence Petitioner relies on for adding the proposed third voltage reference is the testimony of Dr. Stojanovic. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). Without any additional supporting evidence, Dr. Stojanovic’s testimony is insufficient to supply the missing “third voltage reference,” which is a key limitation of claim 1. See K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 36 (Nov. 2019)9 (“[I]n an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. . . . In other words, expert testimony may explain ‘patents and publications,’ but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” (citing K/S Himpp, 751 F.3d at 1365)); see also Inst. Dec. 30–31 (reaching the same conclusion on the preliminary record). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 7,706,207 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,706,207 - Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 9, 2020 · IPR2020-00019 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Fintiv’s rehearing request, upholding leave for Apple to submit a district court claim-construction order and supplemental brief and keeping the preliminary-response deadline.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION A. Standard for Rehearing The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. Although Patent Owner contends that the Order should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, see Reh’g Req. 4, that standard applies only to a request for rehearing of an interlocutory non-panel decision, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b), and to a request for rehearing of a decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial based on a petition, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The Order in this instance was an interlocutory panel decision.” slip op. at 3
- Additional discoveryOther
“request authorization to file a motion to submit the district court’s claim construction order as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(c). Rather, Petitioner followed the proper procedure according to our rules and Trial Practice Guide when it requested leave to file the Markman order and an explanation of how the district court’s construction of “OTA proxy” applies to its asserted grounds of unpatentability. Although the Trial Practice Guide states that a district court claim construction preferably should be submitted with a paper such as a petition or preliminary response, we determined that the particular circumstances of this case warranted Petitioner’s prompt submission of the Markman order and a supplemental brief so that the district court’s claim construction and Petitioner’s arguments would be made of record as early as possible in the proceeding. Order 3 (citing Cons. TPG 47); see also TPG Update 16 (containing same guidance as Cons. TPG). process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard is premised on its erroneous contention that Petitioner was required to submit a motion for supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(c). Reh’g Req. 1, 7. As discussed above, however, Petitioner was not required to file a motion under § 42.123(c), and therefore Patent Owner was not entitled under Board rules to file an opposition to such a motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. Moreover, the purpose of our call with the parties on December 5, 2019, was to address Petitioner’s request under our rules. See Ex. 3001 (e-mail to the Board from Petitioner requesting a call to discuss “Apple’s request to file a 5-page paper (and accompanying exhibits) that address how Apple contends the prior art satisfies one claim construction issued by the district court” and stating that “Fintiv opposes Apple’s request”). Patent Owner, aware of Board rules and the guidance regarding district court claim construction orders in the Trial Practice Guide, was afforded the opportunity on the call to respond to Petitioner’s request. Importantly, Patent Owner has the opportunity in its preliminary response, with an expanded word limit, to respond on the merits to Petitioner’s supplemental brief addressing the district court’s construction of “OTA proxy.” Order 4.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,843,125 - Avigilon Corporation / Avigilon USA Corporation v. Canon Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 17, 2019 · IPR2018-01626 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Avigilon’s rehearing request and maintained denial of institution because § 315(a)(1) barred review after Avigilon’s earlier declaratory judgment action, despite its dismissal without prejudice.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“designated as precedential the decision denying institution of inter partes review in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2018-01511, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2019) (precedential). In that decision, the Board addressed the § 315(a)(1) bar in light of the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the § 315(b) time bar in Click-to-Call. See Cisco, Paper 11 at 5 n.1. The Board held in Cisco that § 315(a)(1) barred institution of an inter partes review even though an earlier civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent at issue had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 8. Cisco is binding precedent in the present case, which involves the same issue of statutory interpretation applied to similar facts. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 2 (rev. 10) § III.D. Thus, pursuant to the ruling in Cisco, § 315(a)(1) bars institution of an inter partes review of the ’864 patent based on the Petition in this case. Petitioner, therefore, has not shown that our Decision should be modified, and accordingly we deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,034,864
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.