- SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2013 · IPR2013-00194 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied SAP’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the Goradia-based challenges because the Petition did not show that Goradia disclosed object routing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Goradia is a VAN switch because it is an OSI application layer switch having a switching component, an object routing component and a management component. Rehearing Req. 3. Citing the Petition at pages 14-15, Petitioner argues that the Money Tool is an application that runs on top of the Internet in the application layer and includes a switching component in that it routes information, such as the address and product ID of requested content. Rehearing Req. 4. The Request for Rehearing does not contend that the Petition specifically argued that the Money Tool discloses object routing or that the Board misapprehended or overlooked such a position advanced by Petitioner. Petitioner now argues Goradia discloses object routing because it describes a genIDl code generator creating object stub source code modules that are linked to the client and server applications and because Goradia states that the client object stub will marshal object parameters, encrypt them, and invoke the Distributed Computing Environment (DCE) stub for the corresponding Remote Procedure Call (RPC) procedure. Id. at 6-8. None of these arguments were advanced in the Petition. In view of Petitioner’s belated arguments, particularly after acknowledging at page 12 of the Petition the association of object routing with the VAN switch, we deny Petitioner’s Request For Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We further note that in related proceeding CBM2013-00013, we construed “‘object routing’ to mean the use of individual network objects to route a user from a selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider.” CBM2013-00013, Decision To Institute 17. Goradia discloses the RPC providing a distributed application program interface in which heterogeneous computers communicate over a network using their local call function syntax. Ex. 1003, 48. When a client computer invokes an RPC to a server, the client marshals parameters into a machine independent form, establishes a network connection, and transmits the arguments to the server. Id. The server unmarshals the arguments, invokes a corresponding local procedure, marshals the results arguments, and sends them back to the client. Id. The client then unmarshals the results arguments and returns them to the calling function. Id. Petitioner has identified in Goradia a code generator, genIDl, that generates code linked to client and server applications that can be used to marshal and exchange parameters between the respective applications. However, Petitioner has not identified how Goradia performs object routing in which individual network objects route a user from a transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider. Petitioner has not identified in Goradia how the code generated by genIDl is linked to the client and server applications.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“Petitioner has identified in Goradia a code generator, genIDl, that generates code linked to client and server applications that can be used to marshal and exchange parameters between the respective applications. However, Petitioner has not identified how Goradia performs object routing in which individual network objects route a user from a transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider. Petitioner has not identified in Goradia how the code generated by genIDl is linked to the client and server applications.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,108,492 - SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2013 · CBM2013-00013 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing on claims 4–6, finding the cited references did not disclose the claimed object routing or virtual information store.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petition contends that “‘object routing’ should be construed as encompassing actions or data that execute a user’s request, which may include sending an object from one point to another” and that “[a]n object in the context of object routing could include a message.” Pet. 18. In the Decision To Institute, the Board construed “‘object routing’ to mean the use of individual network objects to route a user from a selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider.” Decision To Institute, Paper No. 15, p. 17. The Petition does not discuss individualized network objects.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“between computing entities and, at least in the case of Lawlor, the additional feature of converting internal system transactions information into a format that is compatible with the network. In the rehearing request, Petitioner contends that a pair of messages generated in Lawlor, i.e., a POS debit and a POS credit, constitutes networked objects that facilitate the routing of a user for the selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider. Rehearing Req. 3-5. Petitioner notes that Lawlor also describes an interface module that converts internal system transaction information, such as user and service provider accounts and transaction amounts, to a format that is compatible with the network, so that the computer system can interface with the interchange network. Pet. 37. It is not clear from the Petition or the rehearing request how the use of such standard messages constitutes the use of individualized network objects required for object routing. In particular, there is no discussion in the Petition or Rehearing Request of how the user is routed to the processing provided by the service provider.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,037,158 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00260 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00260 as to all parties, before deciding whether to institute review.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Oracle’s petition was filed on May 2, 2013, and Clouding has not yet filed its Preliminary Response. The Board has not yet determined whether an inter partes review should be instituted.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00260 is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’s joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under the 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is also GRANTED.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 5,825,891 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00089 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00089 as to all parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingOther
“The joint motion identifies other related litigation involving Patent 6,631,449 but not Oracle. The defendants in such other related litigation have not filed a petition for inter partes review of Patent 6,631,449. There is no pending motion by any third party for joinder with this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,631,449 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00091 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated the review as to all parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The Board determines that in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to terminate review both as to petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding without rendering a final written decision See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00091 is GRANTED, and this inter partes review is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 5,678,042 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00098 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00098 as to all parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,918,014 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00095 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00095 as to all parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,944,839 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00100 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00100 as to Oracle and Clouding without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,825,891 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00075 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00075 as to all parties without issuing a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,925,481 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00275 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding as to all parties and granted confidential treatment of their settlement agreement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00275 is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’s joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under the 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is also GRANTED.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,596,784
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.