- Apple Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-01399 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 on the petition’s grounds and granted Apple’s motion to join IPR2024-00782.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“As we explain above, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to each of the claims challenged in the petition. Thus, Petitioner has shown that the Petition warrants institution.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“The Petition does not present any new grounds or issues. Joinder Mot. 1, 3–5. Petitioner agrees to the schedule in the Google IPR and, thus, has shown that the trial schedule is not likely to be affected by joinder. Id. at 3, 5–6. No changes in the schedule are anticipated or necessary, and the limited participation, if at all, of Petitioner will not impact the timeline of the ongoing trial. Petitioner has agreed to an “understudy” role, which will simplify matters in the ongoing Google IPR and will be an efficient use of resources. Id. at 3, 5–6. Petitioner will assume a primary role only if Google ceases to participate in the Google IPR. Id. at 6. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that we should exercise our discretion to join Petitioner to the Google IPR (IPR2024-00782).” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00919 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any 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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The Board’s application of these factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 2, 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). “Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,” and if the second petitioner and the first petitioner have a “significant relationship with respect to . . . [the challenged patent],” then the Board will consider the first petition in its General Plastic analysis. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during Resp. 14, 16–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][2] (see Pet. 19–21) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. As Petitioner notes (see Pet. 69), the record regarding the Office’s” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“On this record, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning teaches that each copy of the video is divided into sub-files that correspond to different temporal portions of the video. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:20– 28, 3:5–18, p.7 (table). We are also preliminarily persuaded Leaning teaches that each sub-file represents the same fixed time period (e.g., four seconds), and that each of Leaning’s sub-files has a corresponding sub-file in the other copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 6:21–7:2 (including table), 12:8–20. Moreover, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning’s sub-files each have a time index because the sub-file names are sequentially numbered. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:1–2, 12:16–20, p. 7 (table); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Leaning teaches elements 1[A][3], 1[A][4], and 1[A][5].8 1[B]: “requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes;” Petitioner contends that Leaning teaches and/or renders obvious element 1[B]. Pet. 29–35. According to Petitioner, Leaning teaches that terminal 3 requests a plurality of sequential sub-files of one of the copies from server 1. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:12–19, 2:15–18, 5:4– 6:2, 6:27–7:2, 8:6–16, 23:3–10 (claim 1), 24:28–35 (claim 11), 25:17–20 (claim 16); Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Pet. 21–29). Petitioner also asserts that an 8 Although we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative contention that element 1[A][5] would have been obvious over Leaning, we will evaluate that contention in our final written decision if appropriate.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00918 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 and 12–16 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any 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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: 13 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 67–69; Prelim. Resp. 14–22; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Gamble. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Gamble’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 58–60) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 208). art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of the prior art or arguments). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution. See Pet. 67–68. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. consideration of Leaning US is nearly silent. Neither the applicants nor the examiner discussed Leaning US, and the examiner did not use it as a basis of any rejection. Rather, Leaning US was only cited on a twenty-five page Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) along with 237 other references. See Ex. 1002, 7–31. Given the volume of the applicants’ disclosure, it would not be surprising if the examiner overlooked material information in it. Because the Office’s evaluation of Leaning US was minimal, we find that factor (c) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. As for factors (e) and (f), Petitioner has shown that the Office erred by” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundInstituted
“The legal question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00917 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any 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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially 14 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 59–61; Prelim. Resp. 14–23; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Ala-Honkola. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Ala-Honkola’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 50–52) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 81–82). and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. 2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution of related, ancestor applications. See Pet. 60. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–15, 17–18) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4– 6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19– 27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“On this record, the findings from the ITC Investigation regarding objective indicia do not undermine the sufficiency of Petitioner’s obviousness showing for purposes of institution. Our preliminary record includes no evidence of long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, or industry praise. In addition, Patent Owner has not yet shown a nexus between any such evidence and the claimed invention. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, the evidence of secondary considerations must have a nexus to the claims, i.e., there must be a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the patented invention.”); see also id. (“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.”); ZUP, LLC patentee “bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness”). Patent Owner will have the opportunity during the trial to present and develop arguments that objective indicia show that the challenged claims would not have been obvious, and our final written decision will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,757,156 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00940 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–20 of the ’234 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including:” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 5. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner asserts that “resolution of such dispute is not necessary for the Board to make a determination regarding institution.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’234 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,991,234 - Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00941 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 under § 314(a), finding a second review would impose unnecessary burden without sufficient efficiency or fairness justification.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to explain why the Leaning grounds in IPR2024-00940 are not sufficient for challenging claims 1–20 of the ’234 patent. Indeed, “both petitions contain strong invalidating prior art” by Petitioner’s own reckoning (Pet. Ranking 2), and Petitioner characterizes Leaning as “undoubtably very strong invalidating prior art” (id. at 4). We further note that both petitions challenge all 20 claims of the ’234 patent, so the scope of the challenges is exactly the same in both cases. As a result, we are not persuaded that the differences between the petitions militate in favor of instituting both proceedings.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,991,234 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01318 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 because the related original petition had already been instituted, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,646,042 B1 (“the ’042 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00573 (“Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. See IPR2024-00782, Paper 13. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00782. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00782],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it “has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of the same patent.” Notice 1. Although Petitioner provides “a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits” and “a succinct explanation of the differences” (id.), Petitioner requests that “should the Board decide to institute only a single petition against the ’042 patent, . . . the Board institute Petitioner’s Original Petition (in IPR2024-00782).” Id. Since, as discussed above, the Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder in the current IPR.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,646,042 B1 (“the ’042 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00573 (“Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. See IPR2024-00782, Paper 13. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00782. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00782],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01319 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because Google’s conditional request was not triggered after its earlier petition was instituted; it also denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,679,289 B1 (“the ’289 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00407 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. See IPR2024-00783, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00783. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00783],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,679,289 B1 (“the ’289 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00407 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. See IPR2024-00783, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00783. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00783],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it “has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of the same patent.” Notice 1. Although Petitioner provides “a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits” and “a succinct explanation of the differences” (id.), Petitioner requests that “should the Board decide to institute only a single petition against the ’289 patent, . . . the Board institute Petitioner’s Original Petition (in IPR2024-00783).” Id. Since, as discussed above, the Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder in the current IPR.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01320 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because it had instituted Google's original petition in IPR2024-00784, and denied Google's motion for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 B1 (“the ’960 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00405 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. See IPR2024-00784, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00784. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00784],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it “has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of the same patent.” Notice 1. Although Petitioner provides “a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits” and “a succinct explanation of the differences” (id.), Petitioner requests that “should the Board decide to institute only a single petition against the ’960 patent, . . . the Board institute Petitioner’s Original Petition (in IPR2024-00784).” Id. Since, as discussed above, the Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder in the current IPR.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 B1 (“the ’960 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00405 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. See IPR2024-00784, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00784. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00784],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01327 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 because the condition for Microsoft's petition and conditional joinder motion had not occurred.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“of claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 B1 (“the ’954 patent”) (Paper 3) and a Conditional Motion for Joinder (Paper 2). In the Conditional Motion for Joinder, Petitioner “respectfully requests that the Board institute review of IPR2024-01327 based on the concurrently-filed petition and that it grant this motion if, and only if, the Board has previously denied institution of Microsoft Corporation, v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024- 00846.” Paper 2, 1. Petitioner makes this request to “ensure that [it] is party to one (and only one) instituted inter partes review proceeding, preferably the proceeding inspired by [Petitioner’s] initial filing (i.e., the 846 Proceeding).” Id. at 1–2. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’954 patent in IPR2024-00846. See IPR2024-00846, Paper 8. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Conditional Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,886,954
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.