- Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Sma Solar Technology AGRehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 25, 2022 · IPR2020-00021 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claims 1–10 unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–3, 5, and 7 over AAPA and Frezzolini; claims 4, 6, and 8–10 over AAPA, Frezzolini, and Iwamura.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Updated Guidance. See Opp. Reh’g 4–8. Instead, Patent Owner argues that we correctly determined in the Final Written Decision that AAPA was the foundation or starting point of the ground. Id. However, the language that we relied upon from the Guidance Memo in the Final Written Decision has been deleted from the Updated Guidance. Compare Guidance Memo 6 (directing the PTAB to determine if the applicant admitted prior art is the foundation or starting point), with Updated Guidance (language omitted). Although we properly followed the Guidance Memo in the Final Written follow the clear and unambiguous requirements of the Updated Guidance. Moreover, Patent Owner does not direct us to any Federal Circuit case law that suggests using the foundation or starting point test of the Guidance Memo. See Opp. Reh’g 4–8. Although the Qualcomm panel was aware of the Guidance Memo (see 24 F.4th at 1373), the Federal Circuit neither discussed the test set out in the Guidance Memo, nor directed that the PTAB apply the foundation or starting point test. See 24 F.4th 1367.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner argues—supported by the testimony of Dr. Wood—that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline and at least two years of design experience with photovoltaic systems.” Pet. 20 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 18– 22). In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of a person having ordinary skill in the art, “except that we delete[d] the qualifier ‘at least’ to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience.” Inst. Dec. 15–16. Patent Owner does not address that determination. See PO Resp. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. See Inst. Dec. 16. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline and two years of design experience with photovoltaic systems.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that all claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning at the time of the invention. Pet. 20. Patent Owner argues that two terms require explicit constructions: “the power line modem” and “the data signal coupler.” PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions limit the “power line modem” and the “data signal coupler” to DC power lines. PO Resp. 20–22. However, during the Oral Hearing, Patent Owner agreed that, consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, the other limitations of the claims require that the components operate on DC power lines. Tr. 37:5–23. As discussed in more detail below, Petitioner’s combination of prior art references uses DC power lines. Accordingly, no express construction is needed to resolve any dispute in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“of the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Guidance Memo 6–7; Updated Guidance 4–5. Although Patent Owner had the opportunity to make such an argument in the Sur-reply when addressing the Guidance Memo (and by implication, the identical language of Updated Guidance), Patent Owner chose not to do so and, accordingly, forfeited the argument. See Paper 9, 7. Although Patent Owner raised the argument at the oral hearing,17 that is not enough to preserve the argument as no new arguments can by made during the Oral Hearing. See CTPG at 85– 86 (“During an oral hearing, a party . . . may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted.”); Dell, 818 F.3d at 1301 (“[T]he Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”). Just as a movant may not make a new argument in a request for rehearing, a party opposing such a request cannot raise new arguments that it did not make before. See Apple Inc. v. Taction Tech., Inc., IPR2022-00057, Paper 15 at 4 (“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity . . . to present new arguments.”) (Denying Request for Rehearing). Accordingly, because Patent Owner did not argue that the limitations taught by the AAPA were not known in the prior art in its Patent Owner Response or Sur-reply, that argument is forfeited and cannot be considered on rehearing.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,922,048 - Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00352 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because time-barred 2Wire was an RPI and was in privity with CommScope under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“It is undisputed that 2Wire is time-barred under § 315(b) because 2Wire was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’835 patent 12 on February 7, 2014, more than one year before December 31, 2021, the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 65; Ex. 1034; Prelim. Resp. 12. CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI to this IPR proceeding and confirms that “2Wire, Inc. was merged into ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” Paper 7, 2. Indeed, 2Wire’s Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement filed in the Delaware case indicates that “the undersigned counsel of record for 2Wire, Inc. certifies that 2Wire, Inc. has been merged to form ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” and that “[t]his name change is the result of a merger . . . that became effective January 1, 2017.” Ex. 2009, 1. Moreover, CommScope acknowledges that 2Wire is “CommScope’s predecessor-in-interest in the District of Delaware,” and that “[o]n April 4, 2019, CommScope Holding Company, Inc.[, an RPI identified by Petitioner,] acquired the successor-ininterest of 2 Wire.” Ex. 2035, 5; Pet. 64. In sum, CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI in this IPR proceeding and 2Wire merged with ARRIS Solutions. As a result, we are persuaded that 2Wire is an RPI in this IPR proceeding. Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b). See Power Integrations, Inc., 926 F.3d at 1310, 1318 (holding that the IPR Petition was time-barred under § 315(b) because time-barred entity Fairchild, which had merged with the petitioner, was an RPI at the time of institution).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“on February 7, 2014, more than one year before December 31, 2021, the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 65; Ex. 1034; Prelim. Resp. 12. CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI to this IPR proceeding and confirms that “2Wire, Inc. was merged into ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” Paper 7, 2. Indeed, 2Wire’s Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement filed in the Delaware case indicates that “the undersigned counsel of record for 2Wire, Inc. certifies that 2Wire, Inc. has been merged to form ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” and that “[t]his name change is the result of a merger . . . that became effective January 1, 2017.” Ex. 2009, 1. Moreover, CommScope acknowledges that 2Wire is “CommScope’s predecessor-in-interest in the District of Delaware,” and that “[o]n April 4, 2019, CommScope Holding Company, Inc.[, an RPI identified by Petitioner,] acquired the successor-ininterest of 2 Wire.” Ex. 2035, 5; Pet. 64. In sum, CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI in this IPR proceeding and 2Wire merged with ARRIS Solutions. As a result, we are persuaded that 2Wire is an RPI in this IPR proceeding. Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b). See Power Integrations, Inc., 926 F.3d at 1310, 1318 (holding that the IPR Petition was time-barred under § 315(b) because time-barred entity Fairchild, which had merged with the petitioner, was an RPI at the time of institution).” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,462,835 - PTAB · Aug 18, 2022 · IPR2022-00471 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 8–10, 15, 24–26, and 31 over four asserted grounds: anticipation by G.992.1 and obviousness over SC-060, G.992.1 with SC-060, and G.992.1 with Wunsch.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner “bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on an alleged real party in interest more than a year earlier.” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 3. RPI Analysis” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Office (“USPTO”) issued a Memorandum8 titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation” (“the Memorandum” or “Memo”), which states, among other things, that “to benefit the patent system and the public good, the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Memo, 2. The Memorandum explains that “compelling, meritorious challenges will be allowed to proceed at the PTAB even where district court litigation is proceeding in parallel.” Id. at 4. “Compelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[W]here the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage 8 Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf 19 presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Id. at 4−5. “This clarification strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable.” Id. at 5. In addition, “[t]he compelling evidence test affirms the PTAB’s current approach of declining to deny institution under Fintiv where the evidence of record so far in the case would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable.” Id. at 5 n.6 (citing, e.g., Illumina Inc. v. Trs. Of Columbia Univ., IPR2020-00988, Paper 20 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2020) (declining to deny under Fintiv in light of strong evidence on the merits even though four factors weighed in favor of denial and remining factor was neutral)).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“agreed[] that a flag signal does not include information indicating when the FIP settings are going to be used.” Prelim. Resp. 8. In its Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion, the District Court in the Delaware case, after considering both parties’ arguments and evidence, rejected Patent Owner’s proposed construction and adopted Defendants’ compromise construction, which does not import the negative limitation advanced by Patent Owner into the claims. Ex. 2027, 7−8; see also Ex. 1024, 2. The District Court in the Delaware case noted that “the patent does not provide lexicography for ‘flag signal,’” and “[Patent Owner] does not argue that a disclaimer supports it[s] construction.” Ex. 2027, 7−8. The ’835 patent discloses that “synchronization can be based on, for example, a synchronization using FEC codeword counters or a flag signal.” Ex. 1001, 11:7−9. The “flag signal” embodiment does not limit a flag signal to “an inverted sync symbol, or sync FLAG, as used in the ADSL2 G.992.3 OLR protocol,” as Patent Owner alleges. The portions of the Specification relied upon by Patent Owner and Dr. Madisetti use permissive language in explaining that “[f]or example, the flag signal could be an inverted sync symbol, or sync FLAG, as used in the ADSL2 G.992.3 OLR protocol.” Ex. 1001, 12:29−31. Moreover, Patent Owner conceded at the Markman hearing in the Delaware case that a flag signal may contain information that indicates when updated FIP settings are to be used, as long as the” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’835 patent, prior art of record, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Jacobsen, except that we do not accept the qualifier “at least,” which would expand the required amount of experience indefinitely.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,462,835 - PTAB · May 6, 2022 · IPR2022-00360 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–30 on all petitioned grounds and granted Google’s motion to join the Apple IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review.2 Further, for the reasons set forth below, we grant the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“institution of the Apple IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As noted, the Petition in this case asserts the same unpatentability grounds on which we instituted review in the Apple IPR. See Mot. 1. Petitioner also relies on the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Apple petitioner. See id. at 5. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the petition filed by the Apple petitioner. See id. Thus, this inter partes review does not present any ground or matter not already at issue in the Apple IPR. Id. If joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to assume an “‘understudy’ role” and agrees that this role “shall apply so long as the current petition[er] in IPR2021-00922 remains [an] active” party.10 Id. at 6. Petitioner further represents that it will not advance any arguments separate from those advanced by Apple in the consolidated filings. Id. Because Petitioner expects to participate only in a limited capacity, Petitioner submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for the Apple IPR. Id. at 6.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,553,079 - PTAB · Mar 17, 2022 · IPR2022-00091 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–31 on all petitioned obviousness grounds, granted LG’s motion to join the Apple IPR, and terminated this proceeding into that joined case.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A. Grounds of Unpatentability and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)-(4) Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response repeats the same arguments over the Petition’s grounds of unpatentability and under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3)–(4) that Patent Owner presented in the Apple IPR. Compare Prelim. Resp. 9–25 with Apple IPR, Paper 8, 9–25. Thus, for the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the Apple IPR, we determine that the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–31 would have been obvious. See Apple Dec. 11–22. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on the same basis as we instituted review in the Apple IPR.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“In Apple v. Uniloc, the petitioner filed a first petition for inter partes review that was denied and then, after another party filed an additional petition for inter partes review of the patent, the petitioner filed its second petition with a motion for joinder. Apple v. Uniloc at 6. However, not only was that the second petition for inter partes review filed by the petitioner, but the petitioner was also barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing any further petitions. Id. at 6–7. Thus, under these facts, among others, the panel exercised its discretion to decline institution of the petition after applying the General Plastic factors. Id. at 13. Here, however, none of the unique facts in Apple v. Uniloc are present. The Petition is substantially identical to the petition in IPR2021- 00920 (“the Apple IPR”), which it seeks to join, and it presents us with a standard “me too” petition with a motion for joinder. Patent Owner presents no unique facts here that separate the Petition from most other “me too” petitions with a motion for joinder, with the possible exception that Patent Owner sued both Petitioner and the petitioner in the Apple IPR for patent infringement, which is those parties’ only connection to one another identified by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 29.9” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 315(d) states: “if another proceeding or matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in which the inter partes review or other proceeding or matter may proceed, including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.” Though we agree that 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) gives the Director authority to determine how to proceed in the present circumstances, we decline the invitation to deny the Petition based on the existence of co-pending ex parte reexamination No. 90/014,901 and our finite resources.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should: set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). Petitioner timely filed the Motion no later than one month after institution of the Apple IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (b). As noted, the Petition in this case asserts the same unpatentability grounds on which we instituted review in the Apple IPR. See Mot. 2. Petitioner also relies on the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Apple petitioner. See id. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the petition filed by the Apple petitioner. See id. at 6. Thus, this inter partes review does not present any ground or matter not already at issue in the Apple IPR. Id. If joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to assume an “understudy role” and “will only assume the lead role in the proceedings if Apple is no longer a party to the proceedings or unable to advance arguments for one or more claims, or grounds, for example, because of § 315(e)(1).” Id. at 2. Petitioner further represents that it “will not advance any arguments separate from those advanced by Apple in the consolidated filings.” Id. at 3. Because Petitioner expects to participate only in a limited capacity, Petitioner submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for the Apple IPR. Id.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,933,431 - PTAB · Mar 17, 2022 · IPR2022-00090 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all petition grounds and granted LG’s motion to join the Apple IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“over the Petition’s grounds of unpatentability that Patent Owner presented in the Apple IPR. Compare Prelim. Resp. 5–21 with Apple IPR, Paper 8, 5–21. Thus, for the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the Apple IPR, we determine that the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1– 30 would have been obvious. See Apple Dec. 7–17. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on the same basis as we instituted review in the Apple IPR.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“Here, however, none of the unique facts in Apple v. Uniloc are present. The Petition is substantially identical to the petition in IPR2021- 00922 (“the Apple IPR”), which it seeks to join, and it presents us with a standard “me too” petition with a motion for joinder. Patent Owner presents no unique facts here that separate the Petition from most other “me too” petitions with a motion for joinder, with the possible exception that Patent Owner sued both Petitioner and the petitioner in the Apple IPR for patent infringement, which is those parties’ only connection to one another identified by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 25.10 The statutes and rules governing inter partes review expressly provide for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. 42.122(b). For example, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) states: Joinder.— If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Under Patent Owner’s reasoning (see Prelim. Resp. 24–29)11, essentially any petition with a motion for joinder would be denied under the General Plastic factors, even though our governing statutes and rules expressly allow the practice. Patent Owner does not address why we should ignore our governing statutes and rules allowing joinder to use the facts surrounding a motion for joinder to decline to institute the petition, and we decline to do so.” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“Board and . . . co-pending [ex parte] reexamination [No. 90/014,900 of the ’079 patent], the Director should deny the Petition” under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). Prelim. Resp. 29. 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) states: “if another proceeding or matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in which the inter partes review or other proceeding or matter may proceed, including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.” Though we agree that 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) gives the Director authority to determine how to proceed in the present circumstances, we decline the invitation to deny the Petition based on the existence of co-pending ex parte reexamination No. 90/014,900 and our finite resources.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“institution of the Apple IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (b). As noted, the Petition in this case asserts the same unpatentability grounds on which we instituted review in the Apple IPR. See Mot. 2. Petitioner also relies on the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Apple petitioner. See id. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the petition filed by the Apple petitioner. See id. at 6. Thus, this inter partes review does not present any ground or matter not already at issue in the Apple IPR. Id. If joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to assume an “understudy role” and “will only assume the lead role in the proceedings if Apple is no longer a party to the proceedings or unable to advance arguments for one or more claims, or grounds, for example, because of § 315(e)(1).” Id. at 2. Petitioner further represents that it “will not advance any arguments separate from those advanced by Apple in the consolidated filings.” Id. at 3. Because Petitioner expects to participate only in a limited capacity, Petitioner submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for the Apple IPR. Id.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,553,079 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2022 · IPR2021-01095 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 10–16 and 22–27 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments were previously presented and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“the following two-part framework: (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 challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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). In determining whether to institute an inter partes review, we “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,756,359 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2022 · IPR2021-01094 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments had been presented to the Office and Intel had not shown material error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Section 325(d) provides that in determining whether to institute an inter partes review, we “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.” To determine whether to deny institution under § 325(d), we use the following two-part framework: (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 challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“3. Summary We determine, on this record, that substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Further, we also disagree with Petitioner that the Office’s purported treatment of the arguments were unreasonable. As set forth under Advanced Bionics, if reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. As a result, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition in this case. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition. IV. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,756,359 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01113 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 14–16 and 20–25 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes 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.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(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 challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Here, Petitioner has the burden to show that the Examiner erred in determining that Chu ’330 incorporated by reference the ’886 provisional. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - Hulu, LLC v. Pucs, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00811 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Pucs, Inc. on claims 1–7 after the patent owner disclaimed all claims remaining in the instituted trial.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” Id. Patent Owner disclaims claim 1−7 of the 619 patent, which are all claims for which trial was instituted such that there are no remaining claims in the trial. Ex. 2005, 1. In its Request for Judgment, Patent Owner requests adverse judgment against itself with respect to the claims of the ’619 patent. Paper 18, 1.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,728,619
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.