- Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2021 · IPR2020-01215 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied CaptionCall’s rehearing request, leaving in place its denial of institution on the challenged claims and grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Req. Reh’g 2–8 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim scope are untimely, as the Petition did not affirmatively address the scope of this limitation in its Petition. Tellingly, the Petition addressed this claim limitation with two sentences, while Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing devotes over five pages to this limitation. Compare Pet 47, with Req. Reh’g 2–8.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,469,660 - Red Hat, Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research InstituteRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00465 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–14 because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in the claim construction underlying the merits decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“including tables. Step “b)” of claims 1 and 11 reads as follows: “b) generating the metadata including information of the logical volume and the disk partitions forming the logical volume and storing the metadata to the disk partitions forming the logical volume.” Ex. 1001, 12:22–25, 14:32– 35 (emphasis added). Claim 8 essentially recites the same. See id. at 13:36– 39. Each of claims 1, 8, and 11 further recites: “wherein the metadata includes a disk partition table . . . ; a logical volume table . . . ; an extent allocation table . . . ; and a mapping table . . . .” Id. at 12:35–47, 13:49–61, 14:46–67. The antecedent basis for “the metadata” is that metadata which has been generated and stored in the disk partitions forming the logical volume.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,718,436 - Ruiz Food Products, Inc. v. Macropoint LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 6, 2019 · IPR2017-02016 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ruiz Food Products, Inc.’s request for rehearing, finding no persuasive showing that it misapprehended or overlooked matters in dismissing the proceedings as untimely.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“background legal principle (id. at 2–7), the Decision considers the principle but follows the Federal Circuit’s guidance that the principle is not “firmly established and unequivocal” and therefore cannot justify applying an exception to the unambiguous language of § 315(a)(1). Decision 9–10 (citing Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that a “background legal principle” must be both “firmly established and unequivocal before it can justify ignoring the plain text of the statute”; holding that the principle that “a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if the underlying complaint had never been filed” is “anything but unequivocal”)).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“(Paper 18) and terminating the proceedings, the Board determined that the Petitions were untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) and that the Board therefore lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings. More specifically, the Board determined that a complaint for declaratory judgment filed before the Petitions triggered the time bar of § 315(a)(1) even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice after its filing. Decision at 2–3.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,275,358 - Ruiz Food Products, Inc. v. Macropoint LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 6, 2019 · IPR2017-02018 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request, leaving in place dismissal and termination because the petitions were untimely under § 315(a)(1).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“background legal principle (id. at 2–7), the Decision considers the principle but follows the Federal Circuit’s guidance that the principle is not “firmly established and unequivocal” and therefore cannot justify applying an exception to the unambiguous language of § 315(a)(1). Decision 9–10 (citing Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that a “background legal principle” must be both “firmly established and unequivocal before it can justify ignoring the plain text of the statute”; holding that the principle that “a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if the underlying complaint had never been filed” is “anything but unequivocal”)).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“(Paper 18) and terminating the proceedings, the Board determined that the Petitions were untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) and that the Board therefore lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings. More specifically, the Board determined that a complaint for declaratory judgment filed before the Petitions triggered the time bar of § 315(a)(1) even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice after its filing. Decision at 2–3.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,429,659
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.