- Tomofun, LLC v. Doggyphone LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 10, 2021 · IPR2021-00260 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the Board overlooked or misapprehended its arguments or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. 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. We review our Decision under an abuse of discretion standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise 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). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Claim(s) Ground 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Challenged 1 7 102(b) Alasaarela1 2 8 103(a) Alasaarela 3 7–9 102(b) Beccaria2 4 7–9 103(a) Carelli,3 Beccaria 5 7–9 103(a) Bloksberg,4 Beccaria Pet. 4. Petitioner asserts that Alasaarela discloses the audio signal limitation for Grounds 1 and 2. Id. at 23–24, 31. Petitioner asserts that Beccaria discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 3, and Carelli discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 4. Id. at 36–37, 48. For Ground 5, Petitioner asserts that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation. Id. at 60.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“As such, the Petition does not indicate with sufficient particularity that Petitioner relies on the Examiner’s finding as a basis for asserting that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation and, thus, does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden on this point. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Because the Petition did not indicate clearly that it was relying on the Examiner’s finding, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked such a position. In addition, Patent Owner was not afforded a fair opportunity to dispute any reliance on the Examiner’s finding or the reasoning underlying the finding.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of Ground 3 as being based on obviousness. Rather, the Petition clearly asserts for Ground 3 that “Claims 7-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Beccaria[].” Pet. 4; see also id. at 32 (“Ground 3 – Claims 7–9 Are Unpatentable As Anticipated By Beccaria[]”). Petitioner’s Ground 3 analysis of claim 7 relies on Beccaria disclosing each limitation, including the audio signal limitation. Id. at 32–40. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request does not direct us to any portion of the Petition for Ground 3 that asserts any claim limitation would have been obvious over Beccaria, alone or in combination with another reference. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended Petitioner’s argument with respect to Beccaria.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,723,813 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00013 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding its new arguments untimely and unpersuasive as to the aerosol outlet limitation for claims 1–19.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in a petition. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked matters or arguments that were not asserted in the Petition. We deny the Rehearing Request because it is based on new arguments that Petitioner did not present in the Petition. B. Petitioner’s Arguments Are Unpersuasive Alternatively, even if we consider the new arguments raised for the first time in the Rehearing Request, we find none persuasive to show reversible error in the Decision. The ’767 patent describes and claims “a cap assembly” that is characterized by three distinct structures, namely, “a cap, a venturi insert, and a base attached together without welds or separate fasteners to define . . . an air outlet chamber” that is “partitioned from the interior of the receptacle by the base.” Ex. 1001, 15:6–13 (claim 1) (emphasis added); see id. at 3:30–43, 9:45–62 (written description).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“The Petition advances three grounds, each of which is based on obviousness and asserts Benalikhoudja1 as a prior art reference. Pet. 5. We found in the Decision, and Petitioner does not dispute in the Rehearing Request, that each ground “depends on Petitioner’s assertion that Benalikhoudja discloses or suggests ‘an aerosol outlet chamber partitioned 1 We refer to US 2006/0237090 A1, published Oct. 26, 2006 (Ex. 1004). from the interior of the receptacle by the base.’” Dec. 5–6. As we did in the Decision, we refer herein to that feature of the claimed invention as “the aerosol outlet limitation.” Id. at 6. Based on the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determined Petitioner did not show sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that Benalikhoudja discloses the aerosol outlet limitation. Id. at 9–10. Petitioner argues we erred on that point. Req. Reh’g 1–6.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,480,767 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01298 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As discussed further below, after considering all the evidence, we provided in the Final Written Decision a detailed analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments, and rejected Patent Owner’s proposed limitations for “mobile unit,” determining that the ordinary meaning should apply and no further construction was necessary. Final Dec. 14–26. D. The Final Written Decision Our analysis of “mobile unit” in the Final Written Decision was guided by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Final Dec. 11. In summary, for the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that our analysis of “mobile unit” under Phillips was incorrect, or that we overlooked or misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence in that analysis.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,221,904 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01404 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 4–11, and 14–23 unpatentable based on its construction of “mobile device” and findings on combining CDMA and TDMA.
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. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “mobile device.” Rather, we provided a comprehensive analysis of the term “mobile device.” anything that was overlooked or misapprehended in this analysis, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Instead, Patent Owner merely expresses its disagreement with our conclusions and proceeds to reargue points and evidence already considered and rejected in the Final Written Decision. This approach is not proper in a rehearing request. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s own arguments show the error in its proposed construction. For example, Patent Owner argues that the recited “mobile device” “must register with and be able to directly communicate with the cellular network.” PO Resp. 13; Req. Reh’g 1 n.1. Yet, Patent Owner acknowledges that “the claims of the ’023 Patent require the apparatus/movable base station to communicate directly with the cellular network (and not the ‘mobile device’).” Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added). As we pointed out in the Final Decision, the only claimed communication involving the mobile device is between the claimed “apparatus” (the mobile base station) and the mobile device, and Patent Owner acknowledges that this communication need not be cellular. Final Dec. 14 (citing PO Sur-reply 9). Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments undermine its proposed construction.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“[t]he Board erred in finding that that ‘CDMA and TDMA are not incompatible’ by improperly disregarding substantial evidence set forth by Patent Owner and its expert—that undermines any expectation of success and would have discouraged a [person of ordinary skill in the art] from attempting Petitioner’s combinations.” Req. Reh’g 14 (citing Final Dec. 79). Patent Owner does not attempt to identify any specific errors in citing pages from Patent Owner’s written submissions and testimony from its declarant. Req. Reh’g 14 n.31. We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in this regard. Rather, we considered Patent Owner’s submissions and disagreed with them, finding instead that the record demonstrated that CDMA and TDMA can be combined, and we relied on, among other evidence, a prior art reference that expressly discloses a combination of CDMA and TDMA. Final Dec. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1033), 79. We further found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make the proposed combinations and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Final Dec. 57–58, 79–81. slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,979,023 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Velos Media, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2020 · IPR2019-00710 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 22 not shown unpatentable over Chen or Chen and Bao under §103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The Decision, however, did not overlook and rather accepted that the DC block group flag was “not necessary (and often redundant).” Dec. 12–13 (quoting Pet. 53). Notwithstanding that proposition, we declined to extend it to compel omitting the DC block group flag and withholding the DC block from the (0,0) inference. Id. at 13. Petitioner faults the Decision’s conclusion because the (0,0) inference cannot be applied if the DC block does not have a group flag (the inference depends on the group flag’s value). See Req. Reh’g 7–8. The Request fails to persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s argument. Asserting that the DC block group flag was “unnecessary (and often redundant)” does not compel a conclusion that the DC block group flag would be omitted from the bitstream. The Decision determined that the Petition does not sufficiently justify such a conclusion and we do not agree with the Request’s post hoc view equating “not necessary” with “would be omitted.” See Req. Reh’g 8–9.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Request argues the Petition establishes “it would have been obvious not to include (i.e., omit) a group flag in the bitstream for the DC block” as “one of three ways to reduce the size of coded video.” Req. Reh’g 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pet. 54). As an independent basis for modifying Chen, the Petition identifies three potential solutions for reducing coded-video size—“not encoding the significant-coefficient-group flag for the block containing the last significant coefficient, the DC block, and the block whose right neighboring block and lower neighboring block both have non-zero significant-coefficient-group flags.” Pet. 54–55. As support, the Petition cites the challenged patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:6–54). Although the Petition also cites declaration testimony (id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94)), that testimony offers no support beyond that in the Petition. Thus, other than through the challenged patent itself, the Petition does not support the factual underpinning required for an obvious-to-try conclusion. That hindsight approach does not establish a persuasive position.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,964,849 - Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. / TCT Mobile (US) Inc et al. v. Wi-Lan IncRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 21, 2020 · IPR2020-00302 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended or overlooked its arguments on the Hong and Zhuang obviousness ground.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Response (Paper 6), we determined that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground presented in the Petition, and, therefore, we denied institution. Paper 8 (“Dec.”), 20.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“demonstrate that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found the random access channel limitation obvious in view of the description of the initial ranging channel in Hong, based on the combined teaching of Hong and Zhuang.” Req. Reh’g 8. We also addressed Petitioner’s reasons to combine Hong and Zhuang in the Decision denying institution as follows: Petitioner’s argument is based on Zhuang’s use of terms as equivalents without sufficiently explaining how Zhuang’s disclosures apply to Hong. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have combined the teaching of Zhuang that random access and ranging are equivalent terms with Hong’s teaching of fast handover in order to achieve fast handover in other wireless systems based on TDMA, FDMA or CDMA.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 101–106). But Petitioner does not explain how the use of equivalent terms in Zhuang creates a fast handover in Hong, and, as discussed above, Petitioner does not explain how Hong’s ranging request messages are random access signals in the sense taught in Zhuang. Dec. 11. Petitioner’s focus on the alleged interchangeability of, or equivalence between, terms is not persuasive given the differences between Hong and Zhuang, as discussed in the Decision. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,259,688 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Motorola’s rehearing request, leaving intact the remand decision that claims 1–4, 7, and 18 were not shown unpatentable on the instituted grounds.
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 3
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“that Dr. Tewfik’s testimony is not credible because he has “no personal knowledge” and “merely parrots the inventor’s claim chart.” Req. 6. We disagree, because we considered and analyzed expressly Petitioner’s argument and the basis for Dr. Tewfik’s testimony. Remand Dec. 27, 30. We determined that Dr. Tewfik’s testimony was credible, in that it was testimony concerning his opinion with respect to the claim chart, and also that his testimony was based, at least in part, on his personal experience with Windows 98 and its functionalities. Id. at 30. Indeed, the Federal Circuit noted that the rule of reason requires us to consider all pertinent evidence, and then noted explicitly that Dr. Tewfik’s testimony was one example of such pertinent evidence that needed to be considered. See Intellectual Ventures II, 692 F. App’x at 627–628. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked the credibility of Dr. Tewfik’s testimony.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“not have changed the outcome of our Decision. In Figure 4, Kellerer shows a block with a central control unit, address management, routing, an application server, and network managers. Exhibit 1007, 45. This block diagram, however, does not specifically address whether or not Internet access requires an external service controller. Moreover, Petitioner provides no citations to any passages that describe the functions of the central control unit, address management, routing, the application server, and the network managers. See generally Req. 9–13. We are not persuaded that Kellerer teaches all of the components that are necessary to enable Internet access based on Figure 4 alone. That these components are located inside the car, as shown in Figure 3, also does not specifically address whether or not Internet access requires an external service controller. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Figures 3 and 4 render the stand-alone system limitation obvious.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,382,771 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 12, 2020 · IPR2020-00115 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place its discretionary denial of institution for claims 1–3 under § 314(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“that the relevant facts were substantially the same as those presented in NHK. Decision 6–9. The district court had scheduled trial for August 2 Although the Consolidated TPG was published after the Petition was filed, the earlier version (available when the Petition was filed) also includes this guidance. See July 2019 Office Trial Practice Guide Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019). 2020—more than seven months before a final written decision would be due—and the record included “no evidence that the district court has granted (or would grant) a stay pending inter partes review.” Id. at 7. Further, Petitioner “present[ed] overlapping arguments in the Texas Litigation and in the Petition.” Id. at 8 (citing Pet. 24; Ex. 2003, 5, 14–15, 18). Although “the Texas Litigation and the Petition [did] not involve an identical set of claims”—as dependent claims 2 and 3 were not asserted in the Texas Litigation, but were challenged in the Petition—we were not persuaded that this fact alone justified a trial here, as the Board had already instituted two other inter partes review proceedings challenging all claims of the ’609 patent. Id. at 9 (citing Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019- 01367, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2020) (Institution Decision); Netflix, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2020) (Institution Decision)). For these reasons, we exercised our discretion to deny the Petition. Id. at 10.” slip op. at 3
- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“III. ANALYSIS 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.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,407,609 - Firstspear, LLC v. Lineweight, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2019-01170 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that combining Fegen and Stevens would have made the claimed openings compatible with the asserted properties.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. 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. We review our Decision under an abuse of discretion standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“motivated to adhere Fegen’s exterior garment layer to a substrate in order to provide a substrate material having water-proofing or scent blocking properties as taught by Stevens.” Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 55; Ex. 1006, 2:1–4, 3:50–53). In addition, the Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that the slits in Fegen extend all the way through the exterior layer and the substrate in order to permit attachments to be more easily secured to Fegen’s garment.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 62; Ex. 1005, Fig. 3). In the Decision, we determined that Petitioner had failed to establish sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fegen and Stevens in the manner proposed. Dec. 14–16. In particular, we determined that providing slits or openings in the substrate of the proposed combination of Fegen and Stevens “would defeat, or at least greatly diminish, any water-proofing or scent blocking properties of the substrate.” Id. at 15. Thus, we disagreed with Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a substrate to Fegen’s garment for the purpose of providing water-proofing or scent blocking properties. Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree with this broad assertion because the Petition does not demonstrate sufficiently why providing openings in the substrate, as the claims require, would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to consider such openings detrimental to the rationale of providing water-proofing or scent blocking properties. Petitioner’s assertion also ignores the fact that the corresponding openings in the substrate would allow sweat and odor to pass through freely, thereby decreasing the effectiveness of water-proofing and scent blocking properties. Although no evidence of record appears to state expressly that openings of the size claimed would allow sweat and odor to pass freely through the substrate, this fact would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the Rehearing Request fails to demonstrate that a reasonable fact finder could not have arrived at this fact, such that our determination is supported by substantial evidence. See OSI Pharm., 939 F.3d at 1381–82.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also argues that “[t]here is no evidence supporting a difference in effectiveness of the water-proofing and scent blocking properties of the substrate whether the substrate is a solid sheet of material or the substrate contains slots or openings in the same location as the exterior layer.” Reh. Req. 3. This argument, however, attempts to improperly shift the burden of persuasion away from Petitioner. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The burden of persuasion rests with Petitioner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Thus, Petitioner has the burden of presenting evidence supporting its assertion that there is no difference in effectiveness of the water-proofing and scent blocking properties of the substrate with or without openings.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,173,436 - Unified Patents Inc. v. American GNC CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 17, 2020 · IPR2019-00505 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request and left institution denied because it had not shown JSC was reasonably likely to qualify as a publicly accessible printed publication.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. 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. We review our Decision under an abuse of discretion standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise 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).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“likelihood” standard applicable to decisions to institute an inter partes review. We agree with Petitioner that the “reasonable likelihood” standard applies to the issue of whether a reference asserted in a petition for inter partes review qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See id. at 3. As the Board held in a recent precedential decision, “at the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenInstitution denied meritsDecided for patent owner
“are factual disputes that reach beyond the ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard and are more appropriately developed during an instituted trial.” Id. We disagree with this broad assertion because it ignores the fact that, in this case, as explained on pages 15‒16 of the Decision, Petitioner’s evidence does not meet a minimum threshold showing to even present a factual dispute as to availability and dissemination of the reference. See Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (establishing that the Petition must identify, with particularly, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood of public accessibility before the critical date).” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,411,871
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.