- SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-00649 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution on claims 1–30 because Petitioner did not show that the Board overlooked or misapprehended its obviousness arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The Decision Denying Institution considered Petitioner’s argument regarding combining Bonella’s power reduction technique and Bonella’s power loss algorithm as it was presented in the Petition. Thus, Petitioner has not established the proposition that the Board overlooked or misapprehended some evidence in the record. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“disclosed the specific feature alleged to be obvious. Req. Reh’g 12. We disagree. The Decision Denying Institution found that Long and Ashmore did not provide motivation for the specific combination advanced by Petitioner, stating “Petitioner does not point to a motivation to adjust the frequency of the memory banks specifically, simply a general motivation to reduce battery power during power loss.” Inst. Dec. 13. Thus, the Decision Denying Institution stated “we are not persuaded Ashmore [or Long] supports that contention that running at the frequency associated with Power Level 4 during a power loss would have been obvious.” Id. 13–14. “[T]o establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2000) (citation omitted)(emphasis added)). “A determination of obviousness cannot be reached where the record lacks ‘explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’” Hyundai Motor Co. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, Case IPR2016-01476, slip op. at 32 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2017) (Paper 12) (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Decision Denying Institution properly followed this precedent in requiring a specific motivation to make the combination alleged by Petitioner to meet the claimed combination.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“CONCLUSION The Request for Rehearing does not demonstrate that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters raised in the Petition declining to institute review of claims 1–30.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,301,833 - Composite Materials Technology, Inc. v. Greatbatch, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01441 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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 the Director determines . . . 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 unpatentable
“Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the fact that two references relate to the same general subject matter is not, by itself, sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify one reference in view of the other; it demonstrates at most that the two references are in the same field of endeavor. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577–78 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Nor is an alleged admission that Fife and Stephenson are prior art to the ’075 patent sufficient to explain why these two references would be combined in a manner necessary to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 389, 418–19 (2007) (“[I]nventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.”). In support of the Petition, Mr. Frost generally reiterates Petitioner’s arguments, stating: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Fife and Stephenson since both Fife and Stephenson relate to methods for producing tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and both Fife and Stephenson constitute admitted prior art mentioned specifically in the ’075 Patent.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 32. Mr. Frost does not explain, however, why either of these factors would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to use Stephenson’s higher formation voltages in Fife. Thus, this testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (expert testimony regarding motivation to combine is insufficient if it is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements” and “fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does”); see also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that “[l]ack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations” may “render the testimony of little probative value”). As Petitioner provides insufficient rationale to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures of Fife and Stephenson in a manner necessary to achieve the claimed invention, it has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over those references. And, because challenged claims 2–11 and 13–18 each depend from claim 1, and because the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding claim 1 are not remedied by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding claims 2–11 and 13–18, Petitioner has likewise not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of those claims would have been obvious over Fife and Stephenson.6” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In support of the Petition, Mr. Frost generally reiterates Petitioner’s arguments, stating: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Fife and Stephenson since both Fife and Stephenson relate to methods for producing tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and both Fife and Stephenson constitute admitted prior art mentioned specifically in the ’075 Patent.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 32. Mr. Frost does not explain, however, why either of these factors would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to use Stephenson’s higher formation voltages in Fife. Thus, this testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (expert testimony regarding motivation to combine is insufficient if it is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements” and “fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does”); see also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that “[l]ack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations” may “render the testimony of little probative value”).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,312,075 - PTAB · Dec 1, 2017 · IPR2017-01291 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing; inter partes review remains instituted for claims 1 and 3 and denied for claims 7, 9, 13, and 15.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In our Decision, we disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “means for maintaining” as encompassing the structure of “a database and equivalents thereof.” Dec. 6. We determined that Petitioner’s argument and evidence did not show that the database was clearly linked to the recited function. Id. Instead, we were persuaded by Patent Owner’s showing that the Specification of the ’433 patent linked the function of “maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of application programs at a license management server” to algorithms for maintaining license management policy information. Id. at 7−8. Petitioner’s Request does not show a matter that we misapprehended or overlooked. For instance, Petitioner argues that “the Board’s construction appears to have overlooked or misapprehended the disclosure of the ’766 patent, as the specification does not disclose—and the Board’s construction does not identify—any algorithmic structure.” Req. Reh’g 3. Further, Petitioner argues that the “database and equivalents thereof” is the only structure that is clearly linked to the function and that does not render the claims indefinite. Req. Reh’g. 4. These arguments amount to expressing mere dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision, not identifying a matter that we overlooked or misapprehended. As we noted in the Decision, Petitioner did not proffer any argument as to how “a database and equivalents thereof” is linked to the function of “maintaining” the license management policy at the server. Dec. 6. The argument presented in Rehearing does not point out any argument or evidence included in the Petition that we did not consider or that we misapprehended. The Rehearing merely restates what we already found lacking: that the “database” is the linked structure.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner
“decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In our Decision, we disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “means for maintaining” as encompassing the structure of “a database and equivalents thereof.” Dec. 6. We determined that Petitioner’s argument and evidence did not show that the database was clearly linked to the recited function. Id. Instead, we were persuaded by Patent Owner’s showing that the Specification of the ’433 patent linked the function of “maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of application programs at a license management server” to algorithms for maintaining license management policy information. Id. at 7−8.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“argument, the claim term “means for maintaining” allegedly would lack proper disclosure in the ’733 patent Specification, rendering us powerless to review the denied claims. Petitioner’s argument is that “the ‘766 Patent provides no disclosure of an algorithm, instructions, or steps for setting license management policy information[,which] renders the Board’s construction of the ‘means for maintaining’ limitation indefinite.” Req. Reh’g 9−10. In the end, given that we have not been persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that the “database” is the linked structure, a finding of no “algorithm” would result in denial of inter partes review of claim 7, 9, 13, and 15 based on our inability to construe the claim. In summary, Petitioner has not persuaded us that we misapprehended or overlooked arguments or evidence that a “database and equivalents thereof” is clearly linked to the function recited in the “means for maintaining” limitation. Further, Petitioner has not persuaded us that we misapprehended or overlooked any contention that the ’766 patent does not disclose an “algorithm” for the “means for maintaining,” as such contention was not presented. Consequently, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,728,766 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 30, 2017 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding the § 103 and written-description challenges previously considered under § 325(d), and the remaining written-description and indefiniteness challenges insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that we should exercise our discretion in denying institution of review based on Petitioner’s § 103 challenges because the same art and arguments were considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. There is no dispute that Saggio and Lee were expressly considered by the Examiner and discussed in the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance in the May 24, 2016 Notice for Allowance. See Ex. 1008, 86–88. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner considered expressly the teachings of Saggio and Lee, and explained in detail that neither one of these disclosed the claimed “elastic fastener.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner expressly also considered Donaldson and found that it was “cumulative with Lee [ ] in that both references disclose that moving mechanical components must be used to detach the balloons.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on our review of the record, including the claim language and the Specification of the ’779 patent, we agree with Patent Owner’s position. Here, the restriction of the claimed elastic ring is limited such that the balloon, if filled with a sufficient amount of water, is detachable by (1) gravity or (2) by gravity combined with a manually applied acceleration of the tube. Further, we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know when the amount of water has reached a “sufficient amount,” because the elastic rings would allow detachment by gravity or by gravity and manually applied acceleration of the tube. See Prelim. Resp. 42. Indeed, the claim language itself provides the conditions” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the effective filing date of the ’779 patent (“POSA”) was a person having general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in a technical science or engineering. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 10–14). For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, 2 Claims 38, 46, 54, and 60 issued as claims 4, 7, 10, and 13. and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’779 patent and cited prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyOther
“Petitioner argues that the present record is different than the one before the Examiner. Pet. 80. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Kamrin was not before the Examiner. Id. Petitioner contends that “one of the issues in this petition is inherency of the prior art references, which benefits from the consideration of expert testimony.” Id. at 81. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we disagree with Petitioner’s position. The technology here does not appear to be particularly complex, and the Examiner’s explanation shows that he expressly considered the issues of inherency, and offered detailed findings why the functional limitations related to the elastic fastener were not necessarily present in the art at issue. See Ex. 1008, 87–88. Although not referred to expressly in the Examiner’s explanation, the Information Disclosure Sheet considered by the Examiner includes the Petitions in PGR2016-00030 and PGR2016-00031, which contain similar explanations of inherency to those at issue in this case. See PGR2016-00031, Paper 2, 43–45 (Petition discussing inherency issue with respect to Lee). Although the Examiner’s explanation does not refer to those papers expressly, the fact that those papers were listed on an IDS is, nevertheless, circumstantial evidence that Petitioner’s inherency arguments were considered when the Examiner provided his explanation concerning inherency. See Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kamrin fails to even address Donaldson’s use of a mechanical means, i.e., a spring, to release the balloon. Prelim. Resp. 32. Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Kamrin’s testimony meaningfully distinguishes the record that is before us from the record that was before the Examiner.” slip op. at 12
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,533,779 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2017 · IPR2017-00372 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Smith & Nephew’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–83 because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot reached
“II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“combination of Radermacher and Kenna in which a cutting guide (as in Radermacher) is aligned intra-operatively (as in Kenna), but that the Decision did not address a combination of Radermacher and Kenna in which there is angular alignment (as in Kenna) when the cutting guide is planned pre-operatively (which Petitioner argues to have been taught in Radermacher). First, we regard this latter argument to be a new argument. The argument in the Petition is reproduced above. We conclude that the Petition provided inadequate argument and reasoning for combining the references in this manner, i.e., to take the intra-operative teachings of Kenna and apply them pre-operatively. Neither the Petition nor Declaration explain how this would have been accomplished or persuade us that such a combination would have been obvious (without intra-operative adjustment, as taught in Kenna). In particular, the Petition does not explain adequately how a person of ordinary skill would have included Kenna’s angle adjustment teaching in Radermacher’s prosthesis with a patient-specific surface, rather than rotating Kenna’s cutting guide intra-operatively. Although we appreciate Petitioner’s argument that the combination does not require bodily incorporation of one prior art device into another, we are not persuaded that the Petition adequately set forth what that combination would be, or how it would be achieved. See, e.g., Pet. 43–45 (quoting Kenna and asserting it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art).” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s reliance on Exhibits 1051, 1054, 1055, and 1057 is misplaced because the Petition did not contain developed arguments with respect thereto, and we regard this as a new argument. As such, we determine that we did not overlook or misapprehend any arguments with respect to Exhibits 1051, 1054, 1055, and 1057. To the extent that Petitioner relies on Kenna for the argued limitation, we address that contention below.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,377,129 - PTAB · Nov 28, 2017 · IPR2016-01034 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–3, 5, and 6 unpatentable under Ground IV based on Akinaga and the cited supporting references.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“UCN-01 alone, and in combination with the DNA damaging agent mitomycin C. See Dec. 27–28; Ex. 1004. Noting that the two compounds had 1) complementary effects in delaying cell cycle progression; and 2) synergistic cytotoxic and antitumor effects, Akinaga expressly suggests the combination of UCN-01 and DNA-damaging agents for cancer chemotherapy. Id. Seynaeve establishes that UCN-01 inhibits multiple tyrosine kinases in human breast cancer cells coincident with promoting cell cycle arrest. Dec. 28–29, 34–35; Ex. 1014. Accordingly, “Seynaeve proposes a link between UCN-01’s inhibitory effects on tyrosine kinases and its inhibitory effects on the cell cycle.” Dec. 29.8 Akinaga further suggests combining a chemotherapeutic DNA damaging agent with UCN-01 because the two compounds cause delays in different stages of the cell cycle and result in synergistic cytotoxic and antitumor effects, whereas Seynaeve examines the effects of UCN-01 on the cell cycle of human carcinoma cells and shows that UCN-01 is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. See Dec. 37–38. Because both references 8 Considering Seynaeve teachings with respect to UCN-01, we reject Patent Owner’s contention that “there is no evidence from which one can reasonably find that Petitioner carried its burden of proving that people of ordinary skill in the art considered either staurosporine or UCN-01 to be tyrosine kinase inhibitors.” See Reh’g. Req. 6. one of ordinary skill in the art would have found reason to combine their teachings. See id.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Akinaga teaches that UCN-01 inhibits v-src (as does Seynaeve), one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that UCN-01 would inhibit its cellular homolog c-src because v-src is “found only in chickens” and “is more difficult to inhibit.” Dec. 28, 32. We instead credited the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Eastman that “[b]ecause v-Src and c-Src have similar structures, compounds that inhibit the tyrosine kinase activity of v-Src generally inhibit c-Src as well. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that an inhibitor of v-Src would also inhibit the c-Src protein present in A431 cells and other human tumors.” Id. at 33 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 202). Dr. Eastman testified that Robinson, for example, showed “that staurosporine, a molecule very similar to UCN-01, inhibited both v-Src and c-Src. . . . Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that UCN-01 would inhibit tyrosine kinases in both animals and humans.” Id.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,838,512 - Luye Pharma Group Ltd. / Luye Pharma(Usa) Ltd. et al. v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2017 · IPR2016-01096 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 17–23 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the claimed viscosity was necessarily present in either obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In that regard, we note that Petitioner must “meet a high standard in order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis—the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d at 1195‒ 96.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that none of the terms in the challenged claims require express construction at that time. Dec. Inst. 6 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that only claim terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy)); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner offers explicit constructions of several claim terms (Pet. 19‒22), as did Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response (Prelim. Resp. 9‒12). In its full Response, Patent Owner states that there is no need to expressly construe any of the claim terms. PO Resp. 13‒14. On the present record, we agree with Patent Owner and determine that none of the claim terms require explicit construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelOther
“We conclude that, for practical purposes, there is little difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions of the ordinary artisan. Thus, our analysis would be the same under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition. In addition, the level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Patent Owner argues also that objective indicia of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results and commercial success support the patentability of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 59‒61. As we conclude that the preponderance of evidence of record does not support Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, we need not address Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary indicia.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 6,667,061 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,667,061 - Facebook, Inc. / Instagram, LLC v. Skky, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 27, 2017 · CBM2017-00002 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in denying CBM institution because the patent, after disclaimer, lacked a claim requiring financial activity.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs 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.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“CBM patent review of claims 1–14 of the ’870 patent under Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”). Patent Owner, Skky, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner provided evidence (Ex. 2001) that it filed with the Office a statutory disclaimer of claims 1–7 and 9 of the ’870 patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Prelim. Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2001). After the Preliminary Response, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as authorized by the panel pursuant an e-mail request by Petitioner, to address the consequences of Patent Owner’s disclaimer of claims 1–7 and 9. Paper 9 (“Pet. Prelim. Reply”). In response to the” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,203,870 - Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,079,864 - Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Robert Bosch LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2017 · IPR2016-00041 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Costco’s rehearing request, leaving claim 6 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not explain why a skilled artisan would modify the spoiler as claimed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARD The Rule governing requests for rehearing provides that “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Further, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“determined that Petitioner failed to provide “an explanation for why it would have been obvious to combine the two separate components in Kotlarski ’090 into a single component.” ’823 Final Dec. 22. In its Request, Petitioner asserts that we overlooked the explanation by its expert that “[e]ach part of the ‘binary component’ performs the same function in the same way as the distinct components of Kotlarski ‘090.” Req. Reh’g 10 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 74). But pointing out that Kotlarski ’090 and claim 6 of the ’823 patent both have a spoiler for displacing air and claws for retention fails to account for the fact that they are configured to do so in different ways. Claim 6 requires a binary component having portions with different hardness values, where the wind deflection portion and the claws are integrated into a single piece (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2 (depicting the claw as the lower portion of the spoiler, uniform along the length of the wiper)), whereas Kotlarski ’090 has separate retaining clips, longitudinally spaced apart in intervals, that have a similar profile as the wind deflection portion (see, e.g., Ex. 1021, Figs. 5–15 (depicting various embodiments of spoiler/clip combos, with blowouts showing just the separate clips)). This is not a simple matter of making two things one; somehow fusing the clips and wind deflection portion together of Kotlarski ’090 would not meet the requirement of claim 6 where the claw area is harder than the wind deflection portion, because the clips in Kotlarski ’090 are hard from claw to tip (i.e., through the wind deflection portion). See, e.g., Ex. 1021, Figs. 5, 6 (depicting the clip and a cross-section of the clip as made of a uniform material). We emphasize that Kolarski ’090’s clips are separate components from the spoiler, are of uniform hardness (all plastic), and are not harder at the claws. Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that the wind deflection portion and the claws perform the same function in the same way is an oversimplification and does not address this significant distinction. Further, Petitioner has not directed us to, nor do we see, any direct application of the teachings of Kotlarski ’090 for modifying the Prohaska spoiler to have harder claws. The Prohaska spoiler is similar to the spoiler in the ’823 patent, in that the claws are on the spoiler. Kotlarski ’090 is different—it teaches separate clips. It does not teach making the claws of a spoiler harder. To apply the teachings of Kotlarski ’090 to Prohaska’s spoiler in one of the articulated grounds would not satisfy the claims; it would require a further modification than what is shown in Kotlarski ’090 or explained in the Petition in order for the claw portion to be harder than the wind deflection portion. Petitioner argues that Prohaska already teaches a “binary component,” Req. Reh’g 10–12, but this argument is untenable in view of our understanding of the term. See ’823 Final Dec. 22 (explaining that the claim requires a binary component to be made of a single structure having different hardness values). Reviewing the Request, we are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments or evidence regarding the ground asserted against claim 6 of the ’823 patent involving Kotlarski ’090.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Lastly, Petitioner argues that the ’264 Final Decision, which issued March 30, 2017, and determined claim 3 of the ’264 patent was unpatentable, should be held to have preclusive effect as to claim 6 in our ’823 Final Decision, which issued April 12, 2017.3 Req. Reh’g 13–15. That these two final decisions mailed on separate days is due to mere clerical factors—these trials proceeded concurrently. See Paper 21 (Scheduling Order placing these proceedings on the same schedule). Petitioner’s argument, if persuasive, would result in an inability to rehear certain cases mailed after others, contrary to our Rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (permitting rehearings of decisions, including final decisions). We are not persuaded that the ’264 Final Decision in this instance precludes certain determinations in the ’823 Final Decision. See also generally In re Craig, 411 F.2d 1333, 1336 (CCPA 1969) (where the Board has conceded error in a prior decision, the broad countervailing public policy considerations of granting valid 3 We note that neither decision has been designated as informative and/or precedential. patents preclude the application of res judicata).” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,099,823
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.