- Apple Inc. v. Identity Security LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00171 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving the denial of institution for claims 1–4, 12, and 13 unchanged because Apple showed no abuse of discretion or overlooked matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING On request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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, a reply, or a surreply.” Id. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“conclusions on the basis that Dr. Russ’s testimony is conclusory. Id. at 11. We disagree. We indicated in the Decision Denying Institution that Dr. Neuman’s testimony is conclusory. Dec. 22. For instance, Dr. Neuman testifies that the modifications that would have been needed for Petitioner’s proposed combination would have been “straightforward.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 81. Dr. Neuman’s testimony, however, is simply a conclusory statement without persuasive, supporting explanation or evidence. Id. As we indicated in the Decision Denying Institution, “Petitioner does not indicate or provide evidence supporting that the proposed modifications would have been made without introducing complexities.” Dec. 24. “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Decision to Institute as relating to only convenience. Req. 1–2, 8–11. In the Decision Denying Institution, we explained that Petitioner’s reasons to combine are insufficient because “Petitioner does not address the full teachings of Gullman.” Dec. 22, 25. We stated “[c]ontrary to Petitioner’s assertion (Pet. 33; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81) and consistent with Patent Owner’s position and Dr. Russ’s testimony that Gullman’s system eliminates the risk of the biometric template and input from being stolen during transmission (Ex. 2001 ¶ 119), Gullman describes its system as ‘secure,’ providing ‘secure identification,’ and, importantly, as providing ‘[t]ransmission security.’” Dec. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:46–56). We particularly noted (id. at 23) Gullman’s teachings as follows: The method and apparatus of the present invention have significant advantages over known security systems. Reliable and secure identification is provided which eliminates the need for the user to memorize a code or carry a printed memorandum of the code. Transmission security is provided which is convenient, secure and useful on existing access devices of host systems in current use. In particular, the method and apparatus obviate the need for specially-designed hardware additions or modifications to existing access devices. Ex. 1004, 6:46–56. As we noted in the Decision to Institute, the Petition did not address Gullman’s teaching that its system provides “significant advantages” over known, more complex systems, which might have led an ordinarily skilled artisan away from using Padgett’s more complicated hashing process. Dec. 23–24.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,020,008 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 17, 2021 · IPR2019-01615 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Roku’s rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 were not shown unpatentable over Chardon.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION On request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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, reply, or a sur-reply.” Id. We have reviewed Petitioner’s Request and carefully considered all of the arguments presented. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence, and thus we decline to modify the Decision.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“first communication method” and “second communication method” recited in claim 1 with Chardon’s “CEC command codes” and “IR command codes,” respectively, where Chardon’s command codes are stored in a database linked to the Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) for target devices. Dec. 20–21. We thus evaluated whether command codes in an EDID-linked database teach or suggest the claimed listing comprised of at least a first communication method and a second communication method, and determined that “the record falls short of providing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood stored command codes to act as an identification of communication methods to be used.” Id. at 21–22. slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,716,853 - Commscope Technologies LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 7, 2021 · IPR2020-01466 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution on claims 1–12 because petitioner showed no overlooked matter or abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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, a reply, or a sur-reply.” 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 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“establish Hettstedt discloses the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit.” See Dec. 15. We disagree that we overlooked any arguments presented in the Petition with respect to this limitation. In its analysis of the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” limitation in the Petition, Petitioner relied on Hettstedt’s disclosure that the CMU controls the frequency allocation of each carrier to the remote radio heads “by changing the MAC address of a specific carrier packet to correspond no longer to a first remote radio head, but instead be addressed to a different radio head in a high traffic area.” See Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:10–11; 3:8–16; 4:35–39). Our Decision expressly addressed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence: After reviewing Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, and Patent Owner’s response, we determine Petitioner fails to establish Hettstedt discloses “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” as we construe the claim (changing the configuration of each remote radio unit). Petitioner relies on Hettstedt’s disclosure that the CMU controls allocation of each carrier by changing the MAC addresses of carrier packets to disclose the recited “reconfiguring.” See Pet. 22. However, while changing the MAC addresses of carrier packets may result in an increase or decrease of the number of carriers assigned to a radio head by the CMU when routing traffic, it does not reconfigure (change) the configuration of the remote radio head itself. As we noted in our analysis of the claim construction of this term, the plain language of the claim requires that the remote radio head itself be reconfigured. Petitioner’s analysis does not address how Hettstedt discloses reconfiguring the remote radio unit itself.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We are unpersuaded that we misconstrued the phrase “reconfiguring each remote radio unit by.” Petitioner’s proposed claim construction in the Rehearing Request does not give patentable weight to the claimed “reconfiguring each remote radio unit.” Although we agree with Petitioner that claim 1 requires limitations [b] and [c] (i.e., “determining a load percentage” and “increasing or decreasing the number of carriers”), we disagree with Petitioner that the term “by” before limitations [b] and [c] would require what comes before “by” to have no patentable weight. Rather, as stated in our Decision: we adopt the district court’s construction and construe “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” to be “changing the configuration of each remote unit.” We additionally note that the claim term requires that it is the remote radio unit itself that is changed because the “remote radio unit” is the direct object of the verb “reconfiguring.” This is consistent with the specification of the ’338 patent, which describes reconfiguring the RRUs themselves. Dec. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–13, 7:16–31, 8:8–21, 8:48–55, 11:28–39).” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In its rehearing request, Petitioner now newly argues that we overlooked Hettstedt’s disclosure that remote radio heads are channel-selective in the uplink (i.e., column 5, lines 6–8 of Hettstedt). But Petitioner’s new analysis and explanation that Hettstedt’s teaches “reconfiguring each remote radio unit head” because its radio units are channel selective in the uplink was not presented in the Petition, and we could not have overlooked arguments or evidence not before us.2 See 37 C.F.R. 42.71(d). A petition must include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). We are not persuaded of any error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claim 1 is anticipated by Hettstedt. See Dec. 13–15. 2 We acknowledge Petitioner’s reliance on Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8 on page 21 of the Petition; however, the Petition relied on this portion of Hettstedt for Element F of claim 1 (“configuring each remote radio unit to receive or transmit a respective subset of the plurality of carriers, each respective subset of the plurality of carriers including a number of carriers”), not for Element G of claim 1 (“reconfiguring each remote radio unit by . . .”). See Pet. 21. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request also points to reliance on Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8 on page 10 of the Petition and in paragraphs of Dr. Acampora’s testimony (see Req. Reh’g 6–8 (citing Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–54)), however (i) page 10 of the Petition and paragraphs 46–52 of Dr. Acampora’s testimony are not addressing the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” limitation, and (ii) while paragraphs 53–54 of Dr. Acampora’s testimony addresses the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” these paragraphs do not reference Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8. See Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–54.” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,682,338 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2019-01619 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Roku’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claim 1 under § 325(d) because the petition did not show material Office error.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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 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.” Id. Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (designated precedential Mar. 24, 2020) (“Advanced Bionics”). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Under a two-part framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, we first determine 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 by considering factors (a), (b), and (d). Id. at 8, 10. If “either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied”—that is, if “the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office” or “the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office,” we then consider factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 8, 10.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument by Petitioner that “the detailed mapping in the Petition” demonstrated material error by the Examiner by showing that Herz discloses various limitations of claim 1, including “limitations [1.0]–[1.3], and [1.5].” Req. 5–6. But Petitioner did not present such an argument in the Petition or the Reply. See Pet. 46–48; Reply 1–5. In addition, Petitioner did not explain how its mapping of Herz to disclose certain limitations of claim 1 demonstrates material error by the Examiner. See Advanced Bionics, 9 (“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 patentability.”). That is, Petitioner did not meaningfully connect its obviousness mapping to a demonstration of Examiner error during the Reexamination Proceeding. See Pet. 15–48; Reply 1–5. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked arguments or evidence that were not presented or developed in the Petition or the Reply.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,782,309 - Apple, Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2019-00916 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting review of claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition . . . will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 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” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“court invalidity contentions as asserted in the [p]etition,” it would be an inefficient use of Board resources to grant the petition because “the district court proceeding will [1] analyze the same issues and [2] be resolved before any trial on the [p]etition concludes.” NHK Spring, Paper 8 at 19–20 (emphases added). Agreeing with that argument, the Board denied the petition because granting it “under these circumstances would not . . . provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court litigation.” Id. at 20 (emphasis added). Thus, the critical factor in NHK Spring was not simply the similarity between the prior art raised in the petition and district court proceeding, but the similarity of the prior art and arguments (i.e., the unpatentability/invalidity contentions) raised in the petition and district court proceeding combined with evidence that the district court was scheduled to decide invalidity before the Board would decide unpatentability over similar prior art and arguments.” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,651,533 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2019 · IPR2017-01099 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding it had not shown that the Board overlooked or misapprehended any matter in the final written decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “proxy server” (“an intermediate server that accepts requests from the device and acts on behalf of the device”) and determined that no construction of the term “acts as proxy” was necessary in light of that construction. Dec. 16–18. Patent Owner argues, without further explanation, that we “overlooked or misapprehended the fact that Patent Owner explained in its proposed claim construction that a proxy server must actually service requests.” Reh. Req. 3. Nevertheless, we considered this argument as part of our treatment of Patent Owner’s “proxy server” construction argument, wherein we adopted Patent Owner’s claim construction of that term. PO Resp. 8–9; Dec. 16–18. Patent Owner also argues that we “failed to apply the requirement that a proxy server accept a request on behalf of the issuer, and then, if necessary, re-issue the request.” Reh. Req. 3 (citing PO Resp. 8, 51). However, we did not adopt any such “requirement” in our construction of “proxy server.” Nor is this argument found in Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments or its arguments relating to whether a VPN gateway” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Although 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) prohibits new issues presented for the first time in reply, the reply may respond to arguments made on an already contested issue with appropriate new evidence. Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). As set forth in the Final Written Decision, we found that Petitioner’s arguments, including those listed in Paper 33 (Patent Owner’s List of Improper Supplemental Reply Arguments), related to arguments made in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, which were incorporated by reference into Patent Owner’s Supplemental Response. Final Written Decision 61–62. Patent Owner does not present any reasoning or argument that persuades us that in making this determination we misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 6
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,042,306 - Commscope Technologies LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 17, 2018 · IPR2018-00571 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied CommScope’s request for rehearing of its order denying the motion to disqualify Patent Owner’s counsel.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In particular, “[t]he 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.” Id. When considering a rehearing request, “[t]he burden of showing that the decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,531,473 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01098 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied T-Mobile’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denial of institution for the challenged claims because it found no abuse of discretion in its preliminary construction.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determined in our preliminary construction that the disclosed structure only supports the use of a single wireless network card. Dec. 12– 14. Although the district court cited column 31, lines 22–24 of the ’306 Patent in its analysis of the disclosed structure for the communication module limitation (Ex. 2001, 34), we determined that that portion of the ’306 Patent specification is not related to the identified function for the communication module limitation. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelOther
“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted). Consistent with Okajima, the level of ordinary skill in this case is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Although both parties proposed definitions for the applicable level of ordinary skill in the art. (Pet. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–36; Prelim. Resp. 12), neither party specifically explained how any proposed level of ordinary skill in the art would impact the analysis presented. See Genzyme Therapeutic Products L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Having considered the arguments with slip op. at 8
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,559,369 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01099 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied T-Mobile’s rehearing requests, finding no abuse of discretion in its preliminary construction of the communication module limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“may “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b). When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based 2 See IPR2017-01098, Papers 12, 14; IPR2017-01099, Papers 11 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”), 14 (“Req. Reh’g”). Unless otherwise specified, we refer to papers filed in IPR2017-01099 and, with respect to the specification of the patents, to U.S. Pat. No. 9,042,306 (Ex. 1002) (“the ’306 patent”). The written description of U.S. Pat. No. 8,559,369 (the “’369 patent”) is substantively identical. 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.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner
“We determined in our preliminary construction that the disclosed structure only supports the use of a single wireless network card. Dec. 12– 14. Although the district court cited column 31, lines 22–24 of the ’306 Patent in its analysis of the disclosed structure for the communication module limitation (Ex. 2001, 34), we determined that that portion of the ’306 Patent specification is not related to the identified function for the communication module limitation. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelOther
“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted). Consistent with Okajima, the level of ordinary skill in this case is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Although both parties proposed definitions for the applicable level of ordinary skill in the art. (Pet. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–36; Prelim. Resp. 12), neither party specifically explained how any proposed level of ordinary skill in the art would impact the analysis presented. See Genzyme Therapeutic Products L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Having considered the arguments with 3 We dispute Petitioner’s characterization of what was “recognized” in our Institution Decision, which clearly notes that the functionality is disclosed in the ’306 Patent as being performed “using only a single wireless network card” and “using a single Wireless NIC.” Dec. 12, quoting ’306 Patent at 11:47-48, 24:28 (emphases in Dec.). respect to the level of ordinary skill, we do not find them persuasive that our preliminary construction was based on an erroneous conclusion of law, a factual finding was not supported by substantial evidence, or there was an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. slip op. at 8
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,042,306
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.