- PTAB · Mar 17, 2023 · IPR2022-01242 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board declined Fintiv denial and instituted review of claims 1–20 on all seven asserted obviousness grounds, finding a compelling challenge to claim 1 under Ground 1.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“denial, and Fintiv Factor 1 is neutral. Collectively, the first five Fintiv Factors favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 60
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“that Petitioner will prevail in its challenge to claim 1 under Ground 1. Thus, Petitioner has set forth a compelling, meritorious challenge that plainly leads to the conclusion that at least one claim is unpatentable (based on the current record).” slip op. at 74
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“that RF carriers, CDMA codes, TDMA time slots or other information defining and describing the way data is being transmitted do not include underlying data that is transmitted. In isolation, the phrase “not including underlying data that is being transmitted” could be subject to different interpretations. It could simply mean that data being transmitted by itself is not a radio resource, but the RF carrier transmitting the data could be a radio resource. Patent Owner makes clear, however, that this interpretation is not the intent of its construction by arguing that, under its construction, Hettstedt’s RF carriers are not radio resources because they have data modulated on them. Prelim. Resp. 24–27. Similarly, Patent Owner argues that Wu’s carriers are not radio resources because they have payload data encapsulated in them. Id. at 34; see also id. at 35. Patent Owner, however, cites nothing from the Specification that indicates RF carriers, CDMA codes, or TDMA time slots cease to be radio resources merely because data is modulated or encapsulated on them. Prelim. Resp. 12–18. Further, we see no such teaching in the Specification.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Wellington’s teachings to Hettstedt’s system to obviate the need for a human user to perform the load balancing (i.e., improve the system by making it automatic) as a threshold-based trigger avoids the need for the system to wait for user inputs. Ex. 1003 ¶ 130. Further, an ordinarily skilled artisan would naturally use a threshold for the trigger as taught by Wellington because a threshold is readily programmable and machine executable. Id. In addition, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Wellington’s teaching to improve the adaptability of Hettstedt’s system. Id. A benefit of a threshold-based trigger is that it allows a system to fine-tune the load balancing by adjusting the threshold. Id. Further, there is no need to reprogram significant software when using a threshold-based trigger. Id.” slip op. at 72
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,026,232 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2021-00680 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9–11, 14–16, 19, 21, 32–37, 39, 47, and 49–57 are unpatentable as obvious; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
Nonecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,469,934 - PTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01328 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 14 and 15 and denied entry of substitute claims 16 and 17 because their feedback-signal limitation introduced unsupported new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3). Further, our rules provide that “[a] motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(2)(ii). In the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the lead plurality opinion explains that “the patent owner must satisfy the Board that the statutory criteria in § 316(d)(1)(a)–(b) and § 316(d)(3) are met and that any reasonable procedural obligations imposed by the Director are satisfied.” Id. at 1305– 06; see also id. at 1341 (“There is no disagreement that the patent owner bears a burden of production in accordance [with] 35 U.S.C. § 316(d).” (Reyna, J., writing for a majority)). We, therefore, must determine whether Patent Owner has made a showing sufficient to establish that its Motion to Amend complies with Section 316(d)(3).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“V. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1015 and 1017, which are declarations of Mr. Bohannon, “on the basis that Mr. Bohannon is not qualified to testify as an expert with respect to the technology in this [proceeding].” Paper 29, 2. We dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion because we did not rely on Exhibits 1015 and 1017 in our determination above that Patent Owner did not show adequate support for proposed substitute claims 16 and 17. See supra Section III.B.” slip op. at 15
NonePatents in suitUS 6,845,019 - PTAB · Feb 14, 2018 · IPR2016-01600 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 but denied substitute claims 13–16 because the application lacked written description support for the added limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Under the correct test for compliance with the written description requirement, Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence do not establish that the ’642 application provides written description support for a variable current limit threshold increasing “during at least a portion of the first state.” The only embodiment disclosed in the ’642 application shows a current limit threshold that increases during the entire on time of the switch (i.e., the entire first state), and the ’642 application never describes a current limit threshold that increases during only a portion of the on time of the switch. Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and Dr. Kelley’s declaration testimony in support thereof rely exclusively on portions of the ’642 application describing a threshold that increases throughout the on time of the switch. See Mot. 10–13; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 62–65. Patent Owner and Dr. Kelley do not specifically address the “at least a portion of” claim language and thus fail to explain adequately how the disclosure of a threshold that increases throughout the on time of the switch would reasonably convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of a current limit threshold that increases for “at least a portion of” the first state. Therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments and submitted testimony are unsupported and conclusory with regard to written description support for the “at least a portion” language, and indeed are inconsistent with the disclosure in the ’642 application, which provides support only for a current limit threshold that increases during the entire first state.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’605 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related discipline, and at least two to three years of relevant experience in the field of power electronics or similar circuitry.” Mot. 3 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 22). Patent Owner further asserts that “[a]dditional education, such as an advanced degree in electrical engineering or a related field, might substitute for some of the experience, and substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational background.” Id. (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 22). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Douglas Holberg, has a similar view, opining that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least two years of experience in designing power electronics,” or “an M.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 38. The two formulations do not differ in any material way. Based on our review of the record, we agree with the parties as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of analyzing the Motion to Amend, we specifically adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Mot. 3; Ex. 2010 ¶ 22.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree for two reasons. First, under Aqua Products, as explained further in the Office’s post-Aqua Products guidance document, a patent owner must still meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for a motion to amend, including setting forth written description support for amended claims, which must not introduce new matter. Aqua Prods., 872 F.3d at 1305–06; Guidance 2. Second, Dr. Kelley’s conclusion that the ’642 application provides written description support for “the variable current limit threshold increases during at least a portion of the first state of each control signal cycle” is conclusory and inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence (i.e., the ’642 application itself), and we therefore give his testimony on this point little weight.” slip op. at 23
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We disagree for two reasons. First, under Aqua Products, as explained further in the Office’s post-Aqua Products guidance document, a patent owner must still meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for a motion to amend, including setting forth written description support for amended claims, which must not introduce new matter. Aqua Prods., 872 F.3d at 1305–06; Guidance 2. Second, Dr. Kelley’s conclusion that the ’642 application provides written description support for “the variable current limit threshold increases during at least a portion of the first state of each control signal cycle” is conclusory and inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence (i.e., the ’642 application itself), and we therefore give his testimony on this point little weight.” slip op. at 23
NonePatents in suitUS 7,834,605 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2017 · IPR2016-00320 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8–10 are unpatentable based on the instituted obviousness grounds after the Board reconsidered the record on rehearing.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“be heard regarding the allegedly new circuits set forth in specific paragraphs of the Baker Reply Declaration. No more was required. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion is denied. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“With no Board denial of concrete, focused requests before us, we are not prepared to find that [the appellant] was denied a meaningful opportunity to respond.”)24; Opp. 15 (“Patent” slip op. at 68
- RehearingOther
“Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 41 (“Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”). Based on the Rehearing Request, the Board withdrew the First Final Written Decision as set forth in the Decision on Rehearing. Paper 42 (Withdrawal of Final Written Decision and Authorization of Sur-Reply) (“Rehearing Decision” or “Reh’g Dec.”). As set forth in the Rehearing Decision, we granted Patent Owner’s request for additional briefing in the form of a Sur-Reply (Paper 43). See Reh’g Dec. 5–6; Sur-Reply.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,169,503 - PTAB · Nov 26, 2014 · IPR2014-01438 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding as to all parties before deciding whether to institute review.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Preliminary Response has not been filed, and a decision whether to institute a trial has not been rendered. Patent Owner represents that there is no currently pending district court litigation or ITC proceeding regarding the ’990 patent, and no decision has been made regarding future litigation. Mot. 1–2. Patent Owner also represents that there is no other related proceeding regarding the ’990 patent in the Office. Id. at 2. Based on the facts of this case, we determine it is appropriate to enter judgment terminating this proceeding with respect to all parties. We further find sufficient cause to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information. Therefore, we grant the joint motion to terminate and the joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate is granted, and this proceeding is terminated as to all parties; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,844,990 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2014 · IPR2014-00323 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding under their settlement without issuing a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Paper 10. Patent Owner has not yet filed a Patent Owner Response and the parties have not taken any discovery. Paper 20, 1. In a telephone conference on October 23, 2014, the parties confirmed that there are no other written or verbal agreements between them concerning the patent that is the subject of this proceeding. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment1 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is GRANTED and the proceeding is hereby terminated; FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information which shall be kept separate from the file of the involved patents under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is GRANTED.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,220,959 - PTAB · Sep 23, 2014 · IPR2014-01007 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated each proceeding as to both parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that terminating each of the proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to enter judgment in each case without rendering a final written decision.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,635,583 - PTAB · Sep 23, 2014 · IPR2014-01001 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions to terminate all four proceedings and terminated each as to both parties, without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner. Id. at 2–4. The parties submit that termination is appropriate because each “proceeding is in its infancy.” Id. at 4. Issues raised during the trial have not been briefed fully and the Board has not yet decided the merits of each proceeding. Id. Petitioner indicates that it will no longer participate even if the Board does not terminate the respective proceeding. Id. According to the parties, Congress and federal courts have expressed a strong interest in encouraging settlement in litigation. Id. at 3. In exercising our independent determination, we generally expect that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that terminating each of the proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to enter judgment in each case without rendering a final written decision.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,258,547 - PTAB · Sep 23, 2014 · IPR2014-00999 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated all four proceedings as to both parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The parties urge the Board to terminate each of these instant proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner. Id. at 2–4. The parties submit that termination is appropriate because each “proceeding is in its infancy.” Id. at 4. Issues raised during the trial have not been briefed fully and the Board has not yet decided the merits of each proceeding. Id. Petitioner indicates that it will no longer participate even if the Board does not terminate the respective proceeding. Id. According to the parties, Congress and federal courts have expressed a strong interest in encouraging settlement in litigation. Id. at 3. In exercising our independent determination, we generally expect that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that terminating each of the proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to enter judgment in each case without rendering a final written decision.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,264,049
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.