- Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00188 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 1-22, 32-41, 47, and 49-62 under § 314(a), applying the General Plastic factors to Apple’s third petition; it also denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“(‘Schrager’)—the primary reference that forms the basis of Grounds 1A–1D of the [’]680 Proceeding—before Bose filed IPR2021-00612 (a petition against related U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025) a day later on March 3, 2021.” Mot. 7. This contention does not specifically address what Apple knew or should have known at the time of filing of its second petition, which Apple filed after the filing of the Bose ’680 petition and after March 3, 2021. See id. In any event, Apple appears to admit that it knew of Schrader prior to filing its second petition on March 23, 2021. See id. In addition, Patent Owner introduces evidence that Apple knew or should have known about Schrager prior to filing of its first petition. See Prelim. Resp. 15 (showing “Petitioner had been aware of Schrager since at least 2014” (citing Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004) and identifying “over 100 times” Apple “had cited Schrager to the Office . . . in its own patent applications” (citing Ex. 2002)); 4 (citing Ex. 2002, 10–15 (web document listing Apple as assignee on multiple patents citing Schrager between 2014 and 2018)); Ex. 2003 (Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed by Apple listing Schrager in 2014); Ex. 2004 (IDS filed by Apple listing Schrager in 2016). Accordingly, this second General Plastic factor weighs in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“D. Conclusion After a holistic review of the General Plastic factors and the arguments presented for and against the exercise of discretionary denial, and following Uniloc, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny institution.” slip op. at 15
- 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 deny institution under § 314, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is denied.” slip op. at 15
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,469,934 - PTAB · Apr 13, 2022 · IPR2022-00229 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1 and 46 under § 314(a), finding that the Fintiv factors and parallel litigation supported discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“court has stayed or may stay the proceeding pending inter partes review. “A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition as well as the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, for the reasons below and based on the particular facts of this case, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and decline to institute inter partes review of the ’040 patent.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,464,040 - Apple Inc. v. Koss CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00053 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a) based on the General Plastic factors and denied Apple’s motion to join IPR2021-00612.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“C. Conclusion After a holistic review of the General Plastic factors and the arguments presented for and against the exercise of discretionary denial, we conclude that the factors weigh in favor of denying institution of the proceeding. On balance and in view of the policy goals articulated in General Plastic, we conclude that it is appropriate here to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 14
- 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 are exercising discretion to deny institution under Section 314, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 14
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,206,025 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2022-00003 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
The Board denied Apple’s untimely joinder motion and denied institution because the petition was filed outside the nine-month PGR filing period.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“motion under§ 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any post-grant review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b). Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder was filed October 20, 2021, which is more than one month after the Board instituted post-grant review in the Google PGR on July 23, 2021. Petitioner, however, argues that special circumstances warrant that the Board exercise its discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5 to waive the one-month joinder period. Mot. 3–6.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“B. Eligibility for Post-Grant Review under 35 U.S.C. § 321 Institution of post-grant review is barred when a petition is filed more than 9 months after the challenged patent is granted. 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). The ’046 patent issued on March 24, 2020 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and the Petition in this proceeding was accorded a filing date of October 20, 2021 (see Paper 1). Thus, the Petition was filed outside the 9-month statutory period for requesting post-grant review under § 321(c). Accordingly, in view of our decision to deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, we deny the Petition because it was not filed within the time limit imposed under 35 U.S.C. § 321(c).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,600,046 - Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01418 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable; each ground relied on file-relative Candelore-II pointers disclaimed during prosecution.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s first petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a second petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021- 01419. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1003, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 22–27 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 30–40 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Toma, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1.” slip op. at 42
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,443 - Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01419 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s second petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021-01418. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Bajaj, however, testifies that he disagrees with Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill because the definition “exceeds the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Dr. Bajaj does not propose a specific level of ordinary skill in the art and states that, for purposes of his declaration, he applies Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’443 patent and 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). Therefore, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“prosecution history sheds substantial light on how the applicants understood the disputed claim language. As set forth above, in response to rejections based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1103, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 30–36 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 41–53 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1. d. Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 As noted above, limitation [7j] of independent claim 7 recites the same “offset value” language as limitation [1j] and Petitioner relies on its arguments and evidence directed to limitation [1j] in its discussion of limitation [7j]. See Pet. 72–73 (limitation [7j]). For the same reasons discussed above, we find that the same deficiency regarding claim 1 applies equally to claim 7 and the claims that depend from claim 1 or claim 7— claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [7j] and, via their dependency from claim 1 or claim 7, the subject matter of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16.” slip op. at 44
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,443 - Ecofasten Solar, LLC / Wencon Development, Inc. D/B/A Quickmount PV Corporation et al. v. Unirac, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · IPR2021-01379 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR for claims 3–7, 9, 10, 13, and 15–23 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same art or arguments had previously been presented to the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“and Nobuyuki[] are the same or substantially the same as art previously considered by the Office, in either original prosecution or during reexamination.” Prelim. Resp. 30. Patent Owner asserts that the first part of the Advanced Bionics two-part framework for determining if denial of institution under § 325(d) is proper is satisfied. We agree, based on our analysis above. Specifically, we determine that under Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Turning to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, Petitioner also argues that the “Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability by adopting a narrow construction of ‘one or more clamps variably positionable on the dual track rail and footing grid’ that is inconsistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 19. We disagree. We discussed the Board’s appeal decision in the previous section of this Decision. The Board affirmed the entirety of the RAN decision by the Reexamination Examiner, including construction of the phrase Petitioner argues was construed in error. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show error. Thus, under Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f), Petitioner has not demonstrated a material error by the Office.” slip op. at 41
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“Accordingly, based on our analysis of the Becton, Dickinson factors and the guidelines in Advanced Bionics, we exercise our discretion and deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. III. CONCLUSION Taking into consideration the arguments in the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we exercise our discretion and deny institution of an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 42
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also argues that the “Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability by adopting a narrow construction of ‘one or more clamps variably positionable on the dual track rail and footing grid’ that is inconsistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 19. We disagree. We discussed the Board’s appeal decision in the previous section of this Decision. The Board affirmed the entirety of the RAN decision by the Reexamination Examiner, including construction of the phrase Petitioner argues was construed in error. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show error. Thus, under Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f), Petitioner has not demonstrated a material error by the Office.” slip op. at 41
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,434,362 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01173 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Weiss-based grounds teach or suggest the claimed residual marine fuel oil.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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
- 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. 12–31. 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 17
- 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
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)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 10 Petitioner defines “HSFO” as being a “high-sulfur HMFO” and “LSFO” as being a “low-sulfur HMFO.” Pet. 1. 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 or obvious over the combination of Weiss ’974 and Weiss ’515.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,584,287 - 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
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.