- PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01299 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 on all of the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field. . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art at this stage. See generally Prelim. Resp. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’674 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties propose no constructions. Pet. 5; see generally Prelim. Resp. No terms require construction at this stage. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments are more persuasive. We agree with Petitioner’s stated rationales and do not view them or its supporting declaration as conclusory. Certainly they are more detailed than Patent Owner lets on, as Petitioner does not merely rely on Oba and Gillespie being in the same field. Rather, as detailed above, Petitioner contends, for example, that the combination would help eliminate the need for a special dedicated LED status display in Oba. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1071 ¶ 53). Petitioner further argues that the combination of Gillespie’s capacitive touch circuitry with Oba’s display was one of a finite number of available and known technologies for implementing touch detection at the time, which would facilitate touch detection in Oba. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97). And Petitioner contends that Gillespie’s OLED display would conserve power used by Oba’s display and would provide better readability of the display. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1071 ¶ 113). None of these arguments are conclusory, as Patent Owner suggests.8 Not only that, but on this record, Gillespie’s OLED and capacitive touch features are not present in Oba, which undercuts Patent Owner’s argument that Oba “discloses all aspects of Gillespie such that there would be no reason to combine these references.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8. As for hindsight, we note: Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1394–1395 (CCPA 1971). We find no impermissible hindsight on this record because Petitioner bases its arguments on the teachings of Oba and Gillespie, not on the disclosure in the ’674 patent Specification.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,506,674 - PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01347 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)(2021). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless 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.” After considering the arguments and evidence of record, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ’298 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“to modify Birrell to use Logan’s method of transferring power using inductive coupling because this method would avoid interference problems and would allow “flexibility” when wirelessly powering devices having different voltage requirements. Id. at 13–14 (explaining that voltage magnitude adjustments may be made by adjusting the windings of the coils; for example, by including more windings in the transmitting coil than the receiving coil the transmitted voltage may be reduced). On this record, Petitioner explains sufficiently for purposes of institution why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures of Birrell and Logan to arrive at the devices and circuits set forth in Demonstrative A, and as described by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“On this record, Petitioner identifies sufficiently for purposes of institution where Birrell discloses every limitation of claim 6. Accordingly, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claim 6 is anticipated by Birrell.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,966,298 - PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01300 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c) Conclusion with Respect to Claim 1 On this record, Petitioner sufficiently identifies where each limitation of claim 1 is taught or suggested by Oba, Sato, Gillespie, and Hara. Petitioner also sufficiently explains for purposes of institution why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the identified references to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Oba, Sato, Gillespie, and Hara.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Other
“aspects of notebook computers, or generic computer systems, were known in the art and could be successfully substituted with, or used to modify, specific components of Oba. We disagree that reliance on these types of references is, by itself, evidence of hindsight reconstruction. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”). Nor do we find that the Petition and the supporting evidence that it relies upon place an undue burden on the Board to resolve the current dispute between the parties, as argued by Patent Owner. c) Conclusion with Respect to Claim 1 On this record, Petitioner sufficiently identifies where each limitation of claim 1 is taught or suggested by Oba, Sato, Gillespie, and Hara. Petitioner also sufficiently explains for purposes of institution why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the identified references to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Oba, Sato, Gillespie, and Hara.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“provides only a single, conclusory assertion regarding expectation of success with respect to implementing Hara’s disclosures in Oba’s notebook computer. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Pet. 21). We disagree. As noted above, Petitioner provides specific arguments and citations to record evidence to support its argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Hara’s disclosures in the apparatus of Oba, Sato, and Gillespie. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106– 108; Ex. 1045, 11:27–35, 11:60–62, Fig. 4D2; Ex. 1013, 4:19–24, Fig. 1; Ex. 1044, 6:3–14, Fig. 14). In the absence of specific reasons to doubt Petitioner’s arguments, on this record Petitioner explains sufficiently for purposes of institution why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Hara’s disclosures in the electronic device of Oba, Sato, and Gillespie.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,019,697 - PTAB · Feb 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01369 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1, 11, and 13 on all asserted grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless 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.” After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’251 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all Challenged Claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The following two-part framework is used to determine whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution: (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 the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Petition does not provide proposed constructions for any terms of the ’251 patent. Pet. 11. And although Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s assertions regarding certain claim terms, it does not contend that any terms of the ’251 require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 23–24, 35. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms of the ’251 patent require construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Feb 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01367 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show them unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5–6. In evaluating these factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to institute review “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The following two-part framework is used to determine whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution: (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 the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless 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.” After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ’551 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“circuity that provides an input to another circuit. Ex. 1010, 339. Simply providing an input to another circuit, however, would not allow the driver to accomplish the goals outlined in the ’551 patent. Instead, in each embodiment of the ’551 patent the driver is used to power a device or circuit, not merely provide a generic signal. See Ex. 1001, 6:37–39. This use of the term “driver” generally aligns with the second dictionary definition provided by Petitioner, i.e., “a program, circuit, or device used to power or control other programs, circuits or devices.”8 Ex. 1010, 339 (definition 3); Ex. 1001, 6:37–39; see Vitronics, 1584 n.6 (noting that dictionary definitions may be used when construing claims, “so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents”). Thus, we find a “driver,” as that term is used in the ’551 patent, must be capable of providing power to another device or circuit. With respect to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we note that although the ’551 patent discloses that a driver may be designed to provide a relatively fixed voltage and frequency output to LEDs, the written description does not suggest that the term “driver,” by itself, requires such functionality. Indeed, the ’551 patent reports optionally including an LED circuit inverter driver in order to sense changes to the load and re-adjust the 8 Consistent with this dictionary definition, the “driver” may both power and control another program, circuit, or device. On this record, however, mere control of another program, circuit, or device is insufficient to meet the requirements of the claimed “driver,” which must provide power to the program, circuit, or device. Thus, at this stage we do not find it necessary to include the optional capability of “control” in our adopted construction.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,154,551 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2021-01370 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 9–17 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on each ground and declining Fintiv discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We decline to speculate as to whether Petitioner’s stay request will be granted. See Fintiv, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative); Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative). Under these circumstances, factor 1 is neutral.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 9–17 on all of the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“indirectly controlled by a user. We agree with Petitioner that the “second switch” limitation does not require that the user directly control the switch. Reply 2. The plain language of the claim is illuminating. Claim 9 recites in part, “a first switch configured to be controlled by a user to control an amount of voltage or current” and “a second switch that allows the first LED circuit to be disconnected from the AC voltage source.” Patent Owner demonstrated that it knew how to claim user control by explicitly reciting that the first switch is “configured to be controlled by a user.” But Patent Owner omitted this same language from the recitation of the second switch, indicating an intentional decision to claim the second switch more broadly. In this situation, Patent Owner is mistaken that the second switch should be interpreted the same as the first switch because the claim explicitly limits each switch differently. The Specification supports our preliminary interpretation. It broadly explains that power to the LEDs “may be adjusted and controlled using any means known in the art.” Ex. 1001, 14:7–9. The Specification then gives an example of a dimmer switch for adjusting the power. Id. at 14:9–11. But not only does the Specification not state that a user directly turns the dimmer switch, it does not state that a user turns the dimmer switch at all. E.g., id. at 14:19–20 (“As the dimmer switch is turned . . . .” (emphasis added)). Even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to understand the dimmer switch to be directly user-actuated, it is merely one example of power adjustment “using any means known in the art.” See id. at 14:7–9. We thus do not see, on this record, any definition or disavowal in the Specification that would require a user to directly select the second switch.8” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Patent Owner because, on this record, Patent Owner’s argument rests on a claim construction of the “second switch” limitation that we have not adopted. That limitation does not require direct user control, as Patent Owner urges. Thus, on this record, Petitioner persuades us that Dowling’s processor-controlled switching discloses the disputed limitation. Patent Owner also attacks Petitioner’s reliance on Dowling’s three- way switch. Id. at 23–24. But this argument is similar to its previous argument—Patent Owner contends that Dowling uses a look-up table, program, or other system controls to control the LEDs via control signals, not a direct user-controlled switch. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 65). This argument also relies on the claim construction that we have rejected at this stage. Lastly, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s statement that this three-way switch “could” be used for color control does not “demonstrate that it is in fact used for color control.” Id. We disagree—Patent Owner is splitting hairs. Dowling says that the switch “could be used for . . . color control,” which is sufficient at this stage to show that Dowling teaches color control using the switch.9 See Ex. 1004 ¶ 65. On this record, we agree that Dowling discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,349,479 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2021-01368 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 16 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success over Grajcar and Walter.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“7. Conclusion On balance, after a holistic consideration of the relevant facts and the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that the facts against exercising discretion collectively outweigh those favoring discretion. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“three grounds raised by Petitioner and it is unclear whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated for the petition as a whole, we need not decide this issue because we find that the same or substantially same art or arguments were not previously before the Office. Petitioner notes that the Office did not consider Grajcar but acknowledges that it did consider “similar patents.” Pet. 12; Ex. 1001, code (56). Patent Owner asserts that the Office considered Grajcar II, a continuation-in-part of Grajcar. Prelim. Resp. 28. For purposes of this analysis, we accept Patent Owner’s undisputed position that Grajcar contains substantially the same disclosure as Grajcar II. See id. Yet Patent Owner does not address that Petitioner’s ground 1 also includes Walter, which the Office did not consider. See id.; Ex. 1001, code (56). Patent Owner also does not contend that Walter is cumulative to or overlaps with other art considered during examination, including Grajcar II. See Prelim. Resp. 28. The parties’ arguments suggest that Walter may not, in fact, be cumulative of Grajcar II. Petitioner contends that to the extent Patent Owner argues that Grajcar’s switch is not integrated into an LED lighting device, this would have been obvious over Grajcar in view of Walter. Pet. 29. Patent Owner argues that Grajcar does not show integration—as predicted by Petitioner—but does not argue that Walter also fails to teach integration. See Prelim. Resp. 25–27 (arguing instead that Walter does not disclose the “switch” limitation). The record therefore suggests that Walter discloses at least some different functionality from Grajcar and thus is not cumulative over the similar reference, Grajcar II. Accordingly, we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously before the Office. Thus, we need not address the material error prong of Advanced Bionics, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 16 over Grajcar and Walter. We do not decide at this stage whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1, 4, 8, and 16 over Reymond and Stephens and its challenge to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 16 over Walter. Nevertheless, in view of SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1355, we institute on all claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). We do not address claim 17 because Patent Owner disclaimed it. Ex. 2003. At this preliminary stage, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying factual and legal issues. V. ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter pates review of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 16 of the ’783 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 53
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits in the context of lighting control systems. An increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art at this stage. See Prelim. Resp. 33 (quoting, but not disputing, Petitioner’s proposed level of skill). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’783 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,757,783 - Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · CBM2018-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to authorize a request for Director rehearing of the final written decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Given the particular circumstances of this proceeding, particularly that the Request for Rehearing was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, we construe Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as requesting authorization to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision and grant this request. Patent Owner is authorized to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision within 30 days of the date of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Given the particular circumstances of this proceeding, particularly that the Request for Rehearing was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, we construe Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as requesting authorization to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision and grant this request. Patent Owner is authorized to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision within 30 days of the date of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,933,827 - Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · CBM2018-00030 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Nasdaq’s rehearing request and authorized it to seek Director rehearing of the final written decision within 30 days.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“STANDARD A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See generally 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (b)–(d). 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).” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“The United States Patent and Trademark Office subsequently implemented an interim procedure1 whereby review of a final written decision by the Director may be requested by a party to a post-grant review proceeding.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,921,051 - Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · CBM2018-00029 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Nasdaq’s rehearing request and authorized it to seek Director rehearing of the final written decision within 30 days.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Given the particular circumstances of this proceeding, particularly that the Request for Rehearing was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, we construe Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as requesting authorization to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision and grant this request. Patent Owner is authorized to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision within 30 days of the date of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,747,506
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.