- Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01271 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–21 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy taught limitation [1B].
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. 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, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“variable data database’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 94; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 68, 70). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties based on the SO-class identified for the form would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’342 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:48– 52). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’342 patent. In column 17, lines 48–52, the ’342 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms, and variations of the data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:48–52. While this portion of the ’342 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe linking or mapping variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 75 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’342 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1B]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1B] of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 10,262,342 - Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy teaches limitation [1C] of claims 1–26.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. 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, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“[m]issing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a ‘plurality of computer-readable field identifiers’ are mapped ‘to one another’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69, 71). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’378 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:42–46). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers (including parameter names) from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because the field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class. Id. We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’378 patent. In column 17, lines 42–46, the ’378 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms and variations of these data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:42–46. While this portion of the ’378 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe any linking or mapping of variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 76 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’378 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1C]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1C] of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Finally, with regard to the Reply and Sur-Reply submitted by the parties (Req. 9), we note that our Decision on Institution reviewed the parties’ discussion of claim construction, but ultimately determined that “[b]ased on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision.” Dec. 11. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner that we misconstrued the mapping limitation where we did not find it necessary to construe any claim term for the purposes of our institution decision because we determined the Petition deficient for failing to meet our threshold requirements as discussed above and in detail in the Decision on Institution. See Req. 1–11.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,633,378 - Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00399 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting review of claims 1–19 despite the later disclaimer of claims 1–10.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“be treated as never having existed, and because claim 1 is the only claim on which Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, we should overturn our decision instituting review. As noted above, when rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion, and 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c); PPG Indus. Inc., 840 F.2d at 1567. But Patent Owner has not explained how we erred in any way in reaching our decision instituting review. Instead, Patent Owner’s argument is new and was not presented previously, and Patent Owner bases its rehearing argument on circumstances having changed since we issued our decision. Req. Reh’g 4 (stating statutory disclaimer was “filed following, and in view of, the Board’s guidance in the [decision on institution]”). For this reason, the Rehearing Request does not “identify [any] matters [Patent Owner] believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked,” nor does it “identify . . . the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For this reason, we deny Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. In addition, we note that statutory disclaimers are “considered as part” slip op. at 4
- Adverse judgmentOther
“proposition that “[c]laims disclaimed under § 253(a) are treated as though they never existed.” Prelim. Resp. 3 (citing Vectra Fitness, 162 F.3d at 1383; Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1422). Neither Guinn nor Vectra Fitness involved a situation in which a determination about the patent, once made, was required to be unwound in light of a subsequent statutory disclaimer. Instead, Vectra Fitness related to a question of how to resolve post-disclaimer proceedings, and Guinn dealt with whether to apply a rule treating the disclaimer of all claims involved in an interference proceeding as a request for adverse judgment against the disclaiming party. Vectra Fitness, 162 F.3d at 1381 (disclaimer filed Feb. 16, 1990; reissue application at issue filed May 9, 1991; reissue patent issued Mar. 29, 1994; infringement suit filed Dec. 4, 1996); Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1420–21. In fact, contrary to the result that Patent Owner urges here of reversing our institution of review, Guinn held that it was appropriate to resolve an interference even after all the involved claims had been disclaimed. 96 F.3d at 1422 (“We hold that the Board had the authority and the responsibility pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) to resolve the interference and render judgment against Guinn as a result of his disclaimer of claim 9 of the ’812 patent.”).” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 11,350,246 - Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00267 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed § 103 combination.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s 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 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“green, left), placed inside the housing between the housing and heating element (red), and surrounding the heating element and portions of the liquid storage portion (blue). Otherwise, Combined Figure 4 is nearly the same as Annotated Figure 4. Compare Combined Fig. 4, with Ann. Fig. 4. Thus, Petitioner does not propose a simple substitution to include the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 in the same manner as used in Thorens231. Rather, Petitioner proposes including the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 and then further modifying its placement by inserting it into the housing. See Combined Fig. 4. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Janet persuasively explain why this arrangement would be expected to be successful nor do they allege that such a modification would have been within the skill set of the ordinarily skilled artisan. In contrast, Patent Owner explains that Petitioner’s [Combined] Figure 4 appears to block any airflow through the device and out of the mouthpiece. Petitioner and its expert do not account for how the mouthpiece would be secured to the liquid storage portion in Thorens788. Moreover, as drawn by Petitioner, the wick touches what is presumably the air inlet for the mouthpiece (although Petitioner does not discuss where the air inlet is), which could adversely impact performance or user experience, such as draw resistance[.] Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have been obvious, including that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention”).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,134,722 - Berkeley Lights, Inc. v. The University Of British ColumbiaRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2021-01249 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Berkeley Lights’ rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in its prior decision that claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2022). There is an abuse of discretion if we have made “a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or in basing [our] decision on an error of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In a request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a 1 We further refer to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 18, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 29, “PO Sur-reply”). decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and “[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 the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“light of the background knowledge in the art. In particular, we found that Petitioner had not adequately shown that the background knowledge in the art would have been sufficient to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art how to apply the techniques such as “laser tweezers” that Dimov mentions briefly, in a way that would have allowed further analyses of cells outside Dimov’s device. See Dec. 29–31. We also found that Petitioner had not persuasively shown that modifying Dimov’s device to make its trenches accessible with a micropipette was within the background knowledge in the art at the time of the claimed invention. See Dec. 31–34.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner points to only one brief mention, in its Petition, of piercing the top layer of Dimov’s device to retrieve cells with a micropipette. Id. at 6 (citing Pet. 40). That argument was not backed by any evidence other than a conclusory statement by Dr. Meinhart repeating the argument in the Petition. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶ 120. We do not credit that testimony because it lacks factual support. Xerox Corp v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (the testimony of a declarant that merely repeats, verbatim, conclusory assertions from a petition, without citing additional supporting evidence or providing technical reasoning to support the testimony, is entitled to little weight). In particular, to the extent that Petitioner argues on rehearing that Dimov’s top layer could have been pierced successfully by a micropipette because it was only 40 microns thick, Petitioner did not properly make this argument during trial or provide adequate evidentiary support.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Although Dr. Meinhart briefly mentions this in his declaration (see Ex. 1039 ¶ 192), Petitioner has not shown that it made this argument during trial, except to the extent that Petitioner improperly incorporated it by reference from Dr. Meinhart’s declaration. See Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 190–196); 37 CFR § 42.6(a)(3). In any event, we do not credit Dr. Meinhart’s testimony on this point because he provides no factual support. See Ex. 1039 ¶ 192; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). As Patent Owner pointed out in its Sur-Reply, Dr. Meinhart acknowledged at deposition that increasing the spot size would have reduced the lateral gradient force of the levitation laser. PO Sur-reply 23 (citing Ex. 2013, 344:18–345:5). We agree with Patent Owner that “Dr. Meinhart . . . did not consider how this reduction in force would have affected the laser’s ability to levitate a cell in Park’s well successfully (especially with cultured cells through Park’s recirculation pattern).” Id.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,087,408 - Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2023 · IPR2021-00406 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was denied; claims 1–8 remain unpatentable because conference distribution established Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA as prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“the abuse of discretion standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The 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. An abuse of discretion may be found where a decision “(1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Abrutyn v. Giovanniello, 15 F.3d 1048, 1050–51 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted)). D. We Overlooked Patent Owner’s Argument Patent Owner is correct that its argument that the Ghofrani and Sulica research aids were dated after May 15, 2005, appeared in the Sur-Reply. Sur-Reply 9–11. Patent Owner also is correct that we overlooked this argument in relying on these research aids as supporting that Petitioner had established that Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA were prior art to the ’793 patent. Final Dec. 11–12; Paper 81, 2 (“the Board’s analysis did not consider whether the research aids themselves were available prior to the critical date”).” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touch-stone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication.’” Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id. at 1355–56 (citing In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)). Under at least some circumstances, a reference may be a printed publication under § 102(b) if it was “displayed to the public,” even if it “was not later indexed in any database, catalog, or library.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There are several factors relating to whether such a display is sufficient to constitute a printed publication, including “the length of time the display was exhibited, the expertise of the target audience, the existence (or lack thereof) of reasonable expectations that the material displayed would not be copied, and the simplicity or ease with which the material displayed could have been copied.” Id. In addition, distribution of a reference at a professional conference may, under at least some circumstances, constitute sufficient dissemination to show public accessibility. Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1375–80 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380–83 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“whether the Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA references qualify as prior art” and in particular “whether the Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA references were publicly accessible by way of their presentation and/or inclusion in distributed materials, such as at a conference.” Paper 81, 3. As discussed above, we find that both references were distributed sufficiently at professional conferences to be publicly accessible at the time of those conferences. By virtue of this public accessibility, both Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA were printed publications early enough to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). G. Asserted Obviousness over ’212 Patent, Voswinckel JESC, and Voswinckel JAHA Petitioner argues that claims 1–8 would have been obvious over the combination of the ’212 patent, Voswinckel JESC, and Voswinckel JAHA. Pet. 30–46. As discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that both Voswinckel JESC or Voswinckel JAHA qualify as prior art. Accordingly, we do not disturb the obviousness analysis in the Final Written Decision, which relies on the prior-art status of Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA. Final Dec. 12–35. slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,716,793 - 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00088 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied 10X Genomics’ rehearing request, leaving intact the finding that claims 15–17 were not shown unpatentable over Ismagilov 091 and US Pub. No. 2002/0058332 A1.
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 to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Petitioner had the burden of proving that the challenged claims are unpatentable. There is no requirement for the Board to provide notice to Petitioner and an opportunity to fill gaps in its case before issuing a final decision that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proof. Allowing Petitioner to submit new evidence under the circumstances presented here would be inconsistent with the standard applicable to a request for rehearing, which” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“emulsion-breaking would have been either necessary or desirable when synthesizing biological compounds, pharmaceuticals, or nanoparticles, as disclosed in Ismagilov 091. Dr. Fair’s testimony that Ismagilov 091’s uses “would require breaking the emulsions” is conclusory and unexplained. Ex. 1008 ¶ 191 (testifying without explanation that Ismagilov’s “uses would require breaking the emulsions to aggregate sufficient quantities of reaction product”). In addition, Petitioner did not cite even this conclusory testimony in its argument that emulsion-breaking was necessary. Pet. 51. Meanwhile, Ismagilov 091 provides numerous examples of uses of its methods and devices, but no suggestion that emulsion-breaking would be necessary or desirable. Accordingly, we determined that Petitioner did not “direct us to evidence sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to place the droplets onto a second continuous phase carrier fluid comprising a destabilizing surfactant to destabilize the droplets, as recited in claims 15–17.” Dec. 63. As discussed more fully below, none of Petitioner’s arguments for rehearing persuades us that we erred in determining that the evidence of record failed to show a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used PFO to break the emulsions in Ismagilov 091.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,896,722 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2021 · CBM2018-00040 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s second rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the patent’s CBM review eligibility was not subject to judicial review.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing of our denial of institution in this proceeding in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 939 F.3d 1301, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Paper 19. We also authorized Patent Owner to file an opposition to Petitioner’s second request for rehearing. Paper 20. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari, vacated the Federal Circuit’s first opinion in the SIPCO case, and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP,” 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020). On remand, the Federal Circuit determined that the issue of whether a patent qualifies for CBM review is not subject to judicial review. SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 980 F.3d 865, 870 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Accordingly, because the circumstances that warranted further reconsideration of our denial of institution no longer hold true, we hereby decline to consider the second request for rehearing. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s second request for rehearing is denied. Our original decision to deny institution based on lack of CBM review eligibility therefore stands.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,758,370 - Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 10, 2020 · PGR2019-00003 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 1–14 are unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“public accessibility, . . . . which involves examining the evidence for proof that each non-patent reference was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Req. Reh’g 3 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). We do not agree. On the contrary, we addressed with particularity the substantial evidence tending to show that each of Petitioner’s References “was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Dec. 12. Specifically, in our Decision, we properly credited indicia on the face of Petitioner’s References, such as printed dates and citation information, which are “part of the totality of the evidence” bearing on the issue of public accessibility. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Using Varenna 2012 as an example, those indicia included details of the copyright notice, indicating publication of Varenna 2012 “by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology” in “2012;” and also additional legends, including the statement “Advance Access publication 30 November 2012,” and a conventional edition identifier from the journal Rheumatology. Dec. 15–16 (quoting Ex. 1005). In the same manner, the totality of evidence supports our finding that each of Petitioner’s References was publicly available prior to the critical date of the invention. Id. at 15– 18.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“public accessibility, . . . . which involves examining the evidence for proof that each non-patent reference was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Req. Reh’g 3 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). We do not agree. On the contrary, we addressed with particularity the substantial evidence tending to show that each of Petitioner’s References “was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Dec. 12. Specifically, in our Decision, we properly credited indicia on the face of Petitioner’s References, such as printed dates and citation information, which are “part of the totality of the evidence” bearing on the issue of public accessibility. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Using Varenna 2012 as an example, those indicia included details of the copyright notice, indicating publication of Varenna 2012 “by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology” in “2012;” and also additional legends, including the statement “Advance Access publication 30 November 2012,” and a conventional edition identifier from the journal Rheumatology. Dec. 15–16 (quoting Ex. 1005). In the same manner, the totality of evidence supports our finding that each of Petitioner’s References was publicly available prior to the critical date of the invention. Id. at 15– 18.” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,867,839 - Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 10, 2020 · PGR2018-00092 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving unpatentable claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, 23-25, and 27-29 based on Varenna 2012 anticipation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing that a 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). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“acknowledged Acceleration Bay and addressed with particularity the evidence of record tending to show that each of Petitioner’s References “was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Dec. 15. Specifically, in our Decision, we credited indicia on the face of Verrena 2012, such as printed dates and citation information, which are “part of the totality of the evidence” bearing on the issue of public accessibility. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Those indicia included details of the copyright notice, indicating publication of Varenna 2012 “by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology” in “2012;” and also additional legends, including “the statement ‘Advance Access publication 30 November 2012,’” and a conventional edition identifier from the journal Rheumatology. Dec. 17 (quoting Ex. 1005). Patent Owner advanced no” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions and note that we addressed these same arguments in our Order denying Patent Owner’s motion to strike. Paper 24; see also Paper 13, 1 (Patent Owner contending that “Exhibit 1044 and related argument are new evidence and argument regarding the alleged accessibility of Varenna 2012 (Ex. 1005) that Petitioner could have submitted with the Petition, but chose not to.”). Rather than pointing out any matters that the panel misapprehended or overlooked, Patent Owner expresses disagreement with that decision, and attempts to offer additional reasoning and argument not advanced during trial. Req. Reh’g, 12–15. That effort is ineffective to establish reversible error. Furthermore, in our Final Written Decision, we noted that Even if we set aside Dr. Robinson’s Declaration, . . . we are persuaded that the indicia of publication on the face of Varenna 2012 are sufficient to establish that Varenna 2012 was “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” and “disseminated or otherwise made available” to the interested public before the critical date, and consequently, a printed publication. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Dec. 19 n.4. For that reason also, Patent Owner shows no reversible error in our Final Written Decision holding that Dr. Robinson’s testimony bolsters” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,820,999
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.