- Proppant Express Investments, LLC / Proppant Express Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · May 20, 2020 · IPR2017-02103 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted in part: claims 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 were held unpatentable; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Therefore, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“evidence quantifying how much additional weight Smith’s container could hold if reinforced as Petitioners proposed,” Opp. 3, we also find it unpersuasive. We determine that Dr. Wooley’s testimony, by itself, supports our conclusion that Smith’s container, as Petitioner proposes to modify and combine it with the other pieces of prior art, would meet the “at least 30,000 pounds” limitation. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 132–141. In this testimony, Dr. Wooley provided a detailed explanation of how much proppant the modified Smith container could hold. See id. We have reviewed that testimony and agree with Dr. Wooley’s conclusion and reasoning. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has failed to provide “any” evidence to support our conclusion that Smith’s modified container can hold “at least 30,000 pounds” as required by claims 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“however, the failure to show the “at least 30,000 pounds” limitation was the sole basis for our finding that Petitioner had failed to prove that claims 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 were unpatentable. See Final Dec. 33–36, 42–43, 59. We find that the Petitioner has shown all of the limitations of these claims are accounted for in the proposed combinations and that Petitioner has provided an adequate rationale for why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner proposed with a reasonable expectation of success. See generally Final Dec. (addressing all of Patent Owner’s remaining arguments); Pet. 34–58 (providing mapping for claims 7, 10, 12), 69–70 (claim 15), 79–82 (claims 18 and 19). Accordingly, we modify our Final Decision and find that claims 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19 have been shown to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,511,929 - Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jul 11, 2019 · IPR2017-02185 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request, vacated the original final written decision, and will issue a corrected decision grouping claims 18–20 and 30–32 with claims 17 and 29.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“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
NonePatents in suitUS 7,828,309 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. v. Legend3d, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · May 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01491 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19 as obvious over Sandrew alone; other proposed grounds remained unauthorized.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“A request for rehearing “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“clearly presented, we nonetheless overlooked Petitioner’s alternative reliance on Sandrew alone in as teaching or suggesting the claimed copying, particularly when taken in context of the anticipation ground based on Sandrew for which we instituted review. As stated in our Decision, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19 as anticipated by Sandrew. Dec. on Inst. 14. Petitioner’s anticipation challenge based on Sandrew, therefore, identified where it contends each element of claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19 of the ’941 patent is disclosed by Sandrew. Pet. 15–25. Petitioner’s obviousness challenge based on Sandrew alone relies upon these same contentions. Id. at 25–26. As such and based on the foregoing discussion, we find that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relying on Sandrew alone shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing only as to claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Petitioner fails to explain in the record before us how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Sandrew, Yuille, and various other references to arrive at the elements recited in claims 4, 11– 13, and 24. For instance, the Petition asserts, and the Request repeats, the following: “Yuille discloses express mathematical algorithms that can almost be cut and copied into the method of Sandrew to yield the invention of the ‘941 Patent.” Reh’g Req. 3 (quoting Pet. 36) (emphasis omitted). As Petitioner recognizes in the Request, this argument is directed to the copying of claim 1, and specifically to meeting an allegation that Sandrew and Yuille together teach automated copying, assuming automation is required by claim 1. Id. at 3–5. Setting aside whether claim 1 actually requires automated copying, as well as whether the alleged combination teaches or suggests automated copying, Petitioner’s articulated rationale to combine the teachings of Sandrew and Yuille does not address how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine their respective teachings not directed to automated copying. For instance, Petitioner fails to address why one would combine the teachings of Yuille with Sandrew to account for the following limitations: (1) the reshaping recited in claims 4, 6–10, and 24; (2) the moving and reshaping of a second mask comprising a polygon, curve, or both recited in claim 11; and (3) the polygon and Bezier curve animation recited in claims 12 and 13. See Pet. 27–34, 42–45. Because Petitioner’s articulated rationale is divorced from the specific limitations required by the claims, we determine Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that each of claims 4, 6–13, and 24 are obvious over the combination of Sandrew, Yuille, and various other references.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,286,941 - Plaid Technologies, Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc. And Yodlee.Com, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Aug 12, 2016 · IPR2016-00275 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Plaid’s rehearing request and maintained denial of institution because Plaid failed to show good cause to excuse late service and an incomplete, time-barred petition.
RulingsRehearing decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDenied
“treatment of the service issue. Our regulations state that a filing date will not be accorded to a Petition until, among other things, service is effected. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105(a), 42.106(a). The undisputed evidence put forth by Plaid indicates that it did not attempt to serve Yodlee with the Petition and supporting evidence until December 3, 2015. See Req. Reh’g 2; Ex. 1022 ¶ 9. In our Decision, we applied the regulations to the particular facts of this case and “determine[d] that December 3, 201[5], is the earliest date by which Plaid satisfied the service requirement for according the Petition a filing date.” Dec. 7 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105(a), 42.106(a)). Therefore, we maintained the initial filing date accorded to the Petition, which was one day after the statutory deadline under § 315(b), and we termed Plaid’s service activities to be “late service.”1 Dec. 6–7. Indeed, Plaid would have had no reason to file a motion to change the filing date had its actions not been “late.” Moreover, our Decision expressly stated that we did not need to “address whether, under appropriate circumstances, we have authority to grant an earlier filing date.” Dec. 8. Rather, our Decision focused on whether Plaid had shown good cause to waive the service requirements imposed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105(a) and 42.106(a). Id. at 8–10. Irrespective of the interplay among the relevant regulations and statutory deadline under § 315(b), we found that Plaid had not shown good cause and that it was not in the interests of justice to excuse Plaid’s late service under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) and (c)(3). See id. Among other reasons, we were not persuaded that waiting for potential changes from a declarant constituted good cause for Plaid to delay its filing and eventual service of the Petition and supporting evidence. See Dec. 8–9. We also weighed the potential” slip op. at 3
- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,199,077 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Innovative Memory Systems, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00326 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 13 based on anticipation by Anderl and obviousness over Anderl or Anderl and Hendry.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“On June 17, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 13, “Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Decision”) an inter partes review in this case. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Request, and we agree that we overlooked the matters identified in the Request. See Reh’g Req. 2–4. Thus, for the reasons stated in the Request, we grant Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. On rehearing, we withdraw our previous Decision and reconsider our Decision in light of the full record, as Patent Owner requests. Id. at 4. Pursuant to this reconsideration, we issue the instant Amended Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine that the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, and 13 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’537 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenOther
“limitation, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that Anderl discloses “said appended information featuring said at least one associated type of permission for accessing the stored data,” as recited in claim 1. Patent Owner focuses narrowly on the value of the data included in protection bytes 43 to 45 of Anderl. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Yet the claim does not focus only on the data alone, but instead recites “appended information.” As the Petition explains, Anderl discloses that the information is appended based on location in file as the value at the particular location. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, Anderl discloses that each file includes prefix section 41 that is located in the first record of each file and contains file identification number 42 and protection bytes 43, 44, and 45. Ex. 1005, 6:57–60. Anderl states that “[t]he protection bytes 43 through 45 specify the file permissions.” Id. at 6:65–66 (emphasis added). As Anderl discloses,” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“not persuaded that “type of permission” is limited to only the type of action that can be performed, e.g., reading or writing, with respect to the data. Instead, the Specification repeatedly refers to the “types of permissions” as “for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“The device, method and system enable various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 2:32–36 (“The present invention enables various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 3:4:26–30 (same). Given this broader usage in the Specification, for purposes of this decision, the “type of permission” is for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data that does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied. The access, if not denied, may include reading from or writing to the stored data. As for “featuring,” we are not persuaded that “featuring,” as used in claim 1 of the ’537 patent is synonymous with “represent,” as Patent Owner contends. A relevant meaning of “featuring” is “to be an important part or aspect of something.” See Ex. 3001. This meaning only requires that the thing that is featured be an important part or aspect, not that it correspond to or represent the thing. Patent Owner does not point us to any disclaimer or definition that would limit this meaning. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Instead, the Specification appears to use the related term “feature” in this ordinary sense. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:54–56 (“As another option, the device may feature a single chip with a microprocessor and firmware for operating the data access features ….”); 5:25– 27 (“A system 10 features a CPU 12 for executing instructions….”); 8:15–19 (“For example, an access control code could be implemented with a combination of different types of data, each of which could again feature a separately selected and assigned data access permission, which optionally and preferably is different for each portion of the data.”). Moreover, the portion of Specification cited by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–61)) makes clear that it only refers to a preferred embodiment and the permissions do not need to be stored as a “code,” i.e., specific information or data representing the permission. See id. at 6:35–36 (“According to preferred embodiments…”), 6:43–47 (“If such a permission is to be stored in an abbreviated code, the code for this particular type of permission could be given as ‘R/W/WP’, for example. Such a code could optionally be stored in the non-volatile 16, for example.” (emphases added)). Such optional language is not sufficient to limit the claimed “appended information” to only something that “represents” the permission, such as a code. See Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he use of ‘may’ signifies that the inventors did not intend to limit [the claim]. . . .”); Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that non-limiting examples are not sufficient to redefine a term).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,324,537
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.