- Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2019-00838 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1, 13–18, 22, and 33–38 under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art had been presented to the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating whether to deny institution on the basis of § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (2) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (3) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (4) 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; (5) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (6) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00736 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations taught the claimed conversational protocol.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’128 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 12–13. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim. Petitioner’s evidence and argument fails to persuasively and adequately explain how the speech acts or performatives as described in Nodine are the events recited in the challenged claims. Although both Finin and Bayardo define and disclose performatives (Ex. 1016, 297; Ex. 1017, 197), Petitioner does not discuss these disclosures or explain sufficiently how the speech acts/performatives in Nodine, Finin, and Bayardo alone or combination teach the “layer of conversational protocol defined by event types and parameter lists associated with one or more events, and wherein the parameter lists further refine the one or more events” limitation of claim 22 and 45. Petitioner asserts that “Nodine in combination with Steiner and Finin discloses or suggests this limitation” of claim 45 (Pet. 49), but Petitioner does not identify adequately any reliance on Steiner for this limitation (id. at 28–33, 49). slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“in the art at the time of the invention of the ’128 patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and one to two years of work experience in networked computer systems or a related area. Ex. 1002 ¶ 14; Pet. 4. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Olsen’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not propose a construction for any claim term. Petitioner avers that no express constructions are required. Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s failure to set forth its construction of any term is reason to deny the Petition, and Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any term. Prelim. Resp. 6. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00735 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations rendered claim 1 and its dependent claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim. slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because (1) it relies on similar art that applicant overcame during prosecution of the parent ’115 patent, and (2) it is duplicative of the co-pending petition in IPR2019-00733. Prelim. Resp. 48– 61. Because, for reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition on other grounds, we need not determine whether it also would be appropriate to deny the Petition pursuant to our discretion under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not propose a construction for any claim term. Petitioner avers that no express constructions are required. Pet. 14. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s failure to set forth its construction of any term is reason to deny the Petition, and Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any term. Prelim. Resp. 6. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Pet. 25. Petitioner’s arguments offer conclusory statements that equate Nodine’s speech act/performative types to “event types” recited in the challenged claims, and the parameters associated with Nodine’s speech act/performatives with “one or more of the events” recited in the challenged claims. See id. Petitioner argues that Nodine thus discloses the conversational protocols defined by events. Id.; see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106–107. In sum, Petitioner maps Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” to the “events” recited in claim 1. We note that Petitioner does not offer a construction for “event” or “event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2019 · IPR2019-00989 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied on claims 1, 4, 7-9, 18, 21, 24-26, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, and 48 because Kobata did not teach the required identifier placement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Microsoft will prevail in challenging the patentability of claims 1, 4, 7–9, 18, 21, 24–26, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, and 48 of the ’636 patent. We, therefore, decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Each of the independent claims of the ’636 patent recites “a second instance of the digital asset” with a “second unique identifier” and requires “the second instance of the digital asset include[s] the digital content and at least one other portion that does not include the digital content.” Ex. 1001, 1 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district court. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). This rule change applies to petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018. Id. 20:60–65 (claim 1), 22:34–39 (claim 18), 24:11–16. Further, the claims recite “the second instance of the digital asset include[s] the second unique identifier embedded in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset.” Id. at 20:67–21:3, 22:41–44, 24:17–20. We agree with Uniloc that “the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset” refers to “the at least one other portion that does not include the digital content.” See Prelim. Resp. 5. Thus, we agree with Uniloc that the plain language of the claims requires “the second unique identifier” be “embedded” in a portion of the asset that “does not include the digital content” and is not, itself, embedded in the digital content. In fact, we see no other reasonable way to interpret this language. Further, we see nothing in the Specification that indicates the patentee intended an alternate meaning for any of the words at issue. For example, the Specification describes creating a first instantiation of the digital asset with “an original offset and serial number embedded within the digital content,” but does not specifically describe where the serial number resides in the second instantiation of the digital asset, noting only that “instead of merely copying the digital content as part of the transfer, the present invention creates a separate instantiation to facilitate tracking of each transfer (or transaction) within the system 100.” Ex. 1001, 14:22–33; see also id. at 15:25–30 (“At step 326 Customer Client Server module 124 marks the digital asset file with the new serial number and offset preferably using the same steganographic technique . . . and then stores the digital asset in a form suitable for later retrieval and play on the user’s system.”). Thus, we see nothing in the Specification demonstrating that the claims are meant to cover anything other than the plain meaning—the second unique identifier is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“Nowhere, however, does Microsoft explain how “ID portion 418” is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content. To the contrary, Figure 4 of Kobata shows 418 to be embedded within Digital Content Data 410. Indeed, this fact is emphasized by Microsoft’s annotations of the Figure. See Pet. 33 (showing ID Portion 418 in purple completely surrounded by Digital Content Data 410 in yellow). Based on this flaw in the Petition, we cannot conclude that Microsoft has established a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would understand Kobata to teach or suggest the second unique identifier is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content. Therefore, Microsoft has not shown that Kobata teaches or suggests “the second instance of the digital asset including the second unique identifier embedded in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset” as recited in the claim.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,706,636 - Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 9, 2019 · IPR2019-00976 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7–10, 12, 15–18, 20, 23, and 24 were obvious over the asserted references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the information 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). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review. slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Id. ¶ 157. These maps/threads provide “[t]he capability to mine/gather the data associated with the digital content 320.” Id. ¶ 162 (emphasis added). Thus, Kobata’s super-distribution threads are stored as part of digital content 320 and provide a history of digital asset transfers—the “history of identities of computer devices that manipulated and/or forwarded the digital content 320.” Id. ¶ 152. However, the threads do not detect when such a transfer occurs. Nor do the cited paragraphs of the Golbeck Declaration relied upon by Petitioner explain how Kobata detects a transfer of the digital asset as required by claim 1. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65 (discussing tracking, but not addressing detecting); see also Pet. 37 (citing same). Thus, Kobata does not support Petitioner’s assertion that Kobata’s super-distribution allows the “digital content [to] be tracked when transferred” as asserted by Petitioner. See Pet. 36.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Kobata discloses an asset identification embedded within an “other portion” of the digital asset that does not include digital content, as required by claim 1. Petitioner asserts that ID portion 418 does not include digital content. Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 60–65). The cited portions of the Golbeck Declaration, however, do not address the recited other portion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 60–65 (discussing the form of the digital content and tracking digital content, but not discussing the recited other portion). Paragraph 53 of the declaration does, noting that “the digital content package 320 can include a viewer module 416, the digital content data 410, the ID portion 418, the local digital rights database 412, [and] the personal rights manager module 414,” and summarily stating that “[t]hus, Kobata’s system includes . . . at least one other portion that does not include digital content.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 208–09). The cited portions of Kobata, however, do not address the components cited by Petitioner’s declarant. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 208–09 (discussing loading a file onto the recipient’s computer device, decrypting the file, and running the file, but not discussing the contents of ID portion 418). As Dr. Golbeck does not direct us to any other evidence to support her assertions, we accord her testimony little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the Specification and the prior art of record, we find Petitioner’s definition reasonable and, for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,606,856 - Panasonic Avionics Corp. v. Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2019 · IPR2019-00043 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Panasonic’s rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the cited art did not teach the claimed redirection server.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing of our Decision Denying Institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent RE46,459 (the ’459 patent) entered as Paper 7 (“Decision” or “Dec.”) on May 14, 2019. See Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g.”). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“redirecting a packet, i.e., one in which the NAS removes the request for the Subscriber’s packet and places it in a new packet to be sent to server 14. Req. Reh’g. 5–6 (citing Pet. 71, 78). Petitioner refers to this second technique as an address-replacement approach. Id. at 5. According to Petitioner, Malkin’s address replacement approach is consistent with our analysis that the ’459 patent requires modifying a request to access a destination on the network by changing the requested destination. Id. at 5–6 (citing Dec. 18). Petitioner overlooks that our analysis of Malkin is independent of how server 14 is accessed. Our Decision states, “When the NAS detects a user attempting unauthorized access, Malkin routes the user’s request to redirection server 14 within ISP 16.” Dec. 17 (emphasis added). We also stated that “Malkin either allows network access for authorized user requests or blocks network access for unauthorized user requests, but it does not redirect a request to another location on the network.” Id. (emphasis added). As our construction requires that the claimed redirection server perform some function other than allowing or blocking access to a network, i.e., redirecting the user to a network location that is different from the requested network location, we concluded that Malkin, which blocks access to the network, does not disclose the claimed redirection server. Id. at 17–18.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“redirection server” means “a server operable to control network access by applying the following actions: block, allow, direct.” Pet. 15. We explained that a prior panel of the Board construed “redirection server” as “requiring[ing] some sort of redirection functionality” and that “blocking and allowing are ‘further’ functions of the redirection server.” Dec. 10. We agreed that “‘redirection’ requires the server perform a redirection function as distinguished from merely blocking or allowing user access, i.e., there must be some form of redirection of the user’s request.” Id. at 11. We phrased the construction of “redirection server” to mean a server that “at least must be capable of redirecting a user to a network location that is different from the network location in the user’s request.” Dec. 12. Our slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“the user’s rule set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address. As an initial matter, we note that the Petition (i) cites Abraham as disclosing denying or allowing transmission of IP packets and (ii) argues it would have been obvious to augment the network server’s ability to deny or allow packets, as disclosed by Abraham, with Malkin’s packet redirection technique, thereby making Abraham’s network server a redirection server. Pet. 30–31. According to Petitioner, “it would have been obvious for Abraham’s network server to redirect packets that are blocked, as described by Malkin.” Id. at 32. As discussed above, because Malkin’s packet redirection technique is a blocking technique that fails to disclose Abraham does not alter our decision to deny institution. See also Dec. 18 (“As we are persuaded that Petitioner has not demonstrated the references disclose a redirection server as that term is properly construed within the meaning of the challenged claims, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood that it will prevail on its challenge to any of the claims.”).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness - Triple Plus Ltd. v. Mordechai Ben OldAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 16, 2019 · PGR2018-00038 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the Triple+ NWL, including the obvious substitution of a butterfly valve for its ball valve.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claim, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued” slip op. at 2
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“subject declaration was filed as Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response states: “Patent Owner, Mordechai Ben Old, hereby submits the following preliminary response in the form of declaration.” Paper 7, 2. To the extent Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response/declaration would be given any weight post-institution, we agree with Petitioner that it would be considered routine discovery and that Patent Owner was required to make himself available for deposition. See Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761 (“Routine discovery includes: . . . (2) the cross-examination of the other side[’]s declarants . . . .”). Patent Owner did not do so. Additionally, the record reflects that Patent Owner has continued to fail to participate in this proceeding. In particular, Patent Owner did not respond to our Order specifying “that Patent Owner shall appear . . . on or before May 30, 2019, and show cause as to why adverse judgment should not be issued against Patent Owner for abandonment of the contest pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” Paper 14, 3. Accordingly, in light of Patent Owner’s failure to participate in the proceeding by appearing for a deposition by Petitioner or otherwise, we agree that the appropriate remedy is to exclude Patent Owner’s declaration, submitted as its Preliminary Response (Paper 7). Thus, to the extent we would have considered Patent Owner’s declaration at this post-institution stage of the proceeding, we decline to do so.3” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had: “a Bachelor of Science degree in a field of engineering or a closely related discipline, and at least one year of practical academic or industrial experience designing, testing and/or manufacturing fluid control valves.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30). As discussed above, Patent Owner did not file a Response. We reiterate our preliminary finding from the Decision on Institution, that, consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner based on the present record. See Dec. on Inst. 10; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“one exception that the Triple+ NWL includes a ball valve whereas claim 1 requires a butterfly. See id. at 32–63; see also id. at 31 (“the Triple+ NWL discloses every element of claim 1 except for the choice of quarter turn rotary valve type,” i.e., the claimed butterfly valve). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he ball valve is interchangeable with the claimed ‘butterfly,’ and it would have been obvious to [a person of ordinary skill in the art] to substitute one for the other.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40, 56–57). Petitioner relies upon Dr. Johnson’s testimony in support of this position. See, e.g., id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). In particular, Petitioner states: a ball valve (like in the Triple+ NWL) is a member of the same family of valves as the butterfly. Except for the shape of the valve member, both are functionally and operationally identical, and both can and were used as shut-off valves for main water lines entering a residence or other structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he Triple+ NWL used a ball valve and was intended for use as a shut-off valve on the main water line.” Id. at 37. Petitioner thus contends that: (1) this use for any quarter turn rotary valve type was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–40); (2) “replacing a ball valve with a butterfly valve was a ‘simple design choice and an obvious replacement’” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56– 57); and (3) “[s]ubstituting one known type of a valve for another— particularly within the same family of valves such as the quarter turn rotary valve family—is the epitome of an obvious design choice” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 38 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 421).7” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,031 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,031 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00480 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a persuasive reason to combine Boykin with the other asserted references.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“point out that we misapprehended Petitioner’s contentions or its evidence. First, we did not adopt Patent Owner’s arguments wholesale and noted only that the arguments presented highlighted the flaw in Petitioner’s case that there was no persuasive reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the asserted combination. Dec. on Inst. 19. Second, we did not misapprehend the Madisetti testimony on the matter of reasons to combine. The Madisetti testimony repeats verbatim the Petition, and we considered all the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in the [federal] rules [of evidence] or in our jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”). Now, if Petitioner’s arguments on rehearing are instead directed to whether we should credit Dr. Madisetti because there is no opposing expert testimony, the argument does not show either legal or factual error. We did not find the Petition persuasive, which also means that we did not find Dr. Madisetti’s testimony persuasive. Just because an expert regurgitates attorney argument does not make the argument either persuasive or worthy of blind acceptance when counter testimony does not exist. Third, Petitioner has the burden to show that the reasons to combine are reasonable and this includes explaining sufficiently and factually supporting stated contentions in light of evidence or facts to the contrary. Neither the Petition nor Dr. Madisetti explains how Boykin’s technique, such as the free distribution of media without a key purchase, fits in with the contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Boykin’s teachings with key-encrypted file” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because Petitioner’s arguments concerning Boykin1 were not persuasive and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to combine Boykin’s teachings with the other asserted references. Dec. on Inst. 14−21. Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 9 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues several points, but in particular, Petitioner argues that our Decision misapprehended Boykin in concluding that the Petition failed to show an adequate reason to combine. Id. at 9. According to Petitioner, Boykin supports the contention Petitioner presented in the Petition that Boykin triggers the incentive of awarding users with points or credits, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find beneficial. Id. Petitioner then points to Dr. Vijay Madisetti’s testimony of the alleged benefit. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 116). Petitioner faults our Decision for weighing Patent Owner’s arguments, which Petitioner criticizes as constituting attorney argument, and concludes that our Decision’s reasoning misapprehends that Boykin would provide a benefit despite our determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not derive the alleged benefit given the teachings of the other asserted references.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“point out that we misapprehended Petitioner’s contentions or its evidence. First, we did not adopt Patent Owner’s arguments wholesale and noted only that the arguments presented highlighted the flaw in Petitioner’s case that there was no persuasive reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the asserted combination. Dec. on Inst. 19. Second, we did not misapprehend the Madisetti testimony on the matter of reasons to combine. The Madisetti testimony repeats verbatim the Petition, and we considered all the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in the [federal] rules [of evidence] or in our jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”). Now, if Petitioner’s arguments on rehearing are instead directed to whether we should credit Dr. Madisetti because there is no opposing expert testimony, the argument does not show either legal or factual error. We did not find the Petition persuasive, which also means that we did not find Dr. Madisetti’s testimony persuasive. Just because an expert regurgitates attorney argument does not make the argument either persuasive or worthy of blind acceptance when counter testimony does not exist. Third, Petitioner has the burden to show that the reasons to combine are reasonable and this includes explaining sufficiently and factually supporting stated contentions in light of evidence or facts to the contrary. Neither the Petition nor Dr. Madisetti explains how Boykin’s technique, such as the free distribution of media without a key purchase, fits in with the contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Boykin’s teachings with key-encrypted file” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“point out that we misapprehended Petitioner’s contentions or its evidence. First, we did not adopt Patent Owner’s arguments wholesale and noted only that the arguments presented highlighted the flaw in Petitioner’s case that there was no persuasive reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the asserted combination. Dec. on Inst. 19. Second, we did not misapprehend the Madisetti testimony on the matter of reasons to combine. The Madisetti testimony repeats verbatim the Petition, and we considered all the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in the [federal] rules [of evidence] or in our jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”). Now, if Petitioner’s arguments on rehearing are instead directed to whether we should credit Dr. Madisetti because there is no opposing expert testimony, the argument does not show either legal or factual error. We did not find the Petition persuasive, which also means that we did not find Dr. Madisetti’s testimony persuasive. Just because an expert regurgitates attorney argument does not make the argument either persuasive or worthy of blind acceptance when counter testimony does not exist. Third, Petitioner has the burden to show that the reasons to combine are reasonable and this includes explaining sufficiently and factually supporting stated contentions in light of evidence or facts to the contrary. Neither the Petition nor Dr. Madisetti explains how Boykin’s technique, such as the free distribution of media without a key purchase, fits in with the contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Boykin’s teachings with key-encrypted file” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,606,856 - Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00361 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12, 14, and 15 unpatentable over Riggins and Devarakonda and claim 20 not shown unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with Patent Owner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matter it requests that we review. We are not persuaded that Patent Owner has shown that we misapprehended or overlooked the matter raised in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,216,158 - PTAB · Jun 19, 2019 · IPR2018-01159 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied West’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In a request for rehearing, we do not review the merits of the Institution Decision de novo. Instead, we consider whether Petitioner has met its burden of showing that a matter has been misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“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.”). We conclude that Petitioner has not met this burden in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Initially, we remind Petitioner that we did not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Carrel in view of David-Hegerich. See Dec. on Inst. 17–22. Rather, we found that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Carrel as proposed by Petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Initially, we remind Petitioner that we did not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Carrel in view of David-Hegerich. See Dec. on Inst. 17–22. Rather, we found that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Carrel as proposed by Petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,586,011
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.