- Dolby Laboratories, Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 8, 2020 · IPR2020-00663 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1 and 2 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either claim would have been obvious over Griswold or England.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the submitted evidence and argument, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’603 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’603 patent was filed (a “POSITA”) would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, mathematics, or a related field, and approximately two years of relevant experience or equivalent study in electronic data protection, electronic content protection, or digital rights management. Pet. 16. Petitioner further states that additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–48). Patent Owner sets forth a similar definition, stating that a POSITA would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and three years of work or research experience in the fields of secure transactions and encryption, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and two years of work or research experience in related fields. Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner states that the positions set forth in its Preliminary Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal. Id. The parties’ proposals do not differ in any meaningful way to the issues in dispute. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, except that we delete the qualifier “a minimum” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond, and thus does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti and is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the prior art and the ’603 patent. We note, however, that our analysis would be the same under either parties’ definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“should be construed to mean “conditions or characteristics determined in advance against which to check the structure and/or behavior of one or more software modules.” Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–72). To support this proposed construction, Petitioner states that the ’603 patent describes “inspector modules that ‘are operable to check the structure and/or behavior of drivers, software, and/or hardware against predefined criteria.’” Id. at 17 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 15:36–62); see also id. (citing Ex. 1001, 16:25–34, 23:63–24:4). Patent Owner contends that the term “predetermined criteria” does not require construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner further asserts that construction of this term is not necessary to resolve the matters presently in dispute. Id. We agree that no explicit construction of this phrase is necessary for our decision on whether to institute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“With respect to Petitioner’s first argument, Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would have understood that in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content[,] the monitor at the licensee’s site must first identify the software in order for the software to be used together with the content . . . .” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93), id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient evidence to support its contention. Although Petitioner cites to the declaration testimony of Dr. Madisetti to support its argument, Dr. Madisetti’s testimony merely repeats verbatim what is stated in the Petition and provides no additional persuasive facts or objective evidence to support his conclusion. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 93; see also id. at ¶¶ 77–82. To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d at 1380; see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s second argument that “a POSITA would have understood that in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content[,] the monitor at the licensee’s site must first identify the software . . . so that information identifying the software can be transmitted in the license datagram for evaluation at the licensor’s site.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51; Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence or argument either that the license datagram provides information about the software (as opposed to the licensed product itself) or a reason why a POSITA would have understood information about the software would be provided in the datagram for evaluation at the licensor’s site. To support this second argument, Petitioner states Griswold’s license check system involves sending a “request datagram” or a “license datagram” to the licensor’s site in order to obtain approval to use the licensed product. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:62–4:5, 5:44–52). Petitioner contends Griswold’s “license datagram 3 describes information related to the use of licensed product 1, including an identification of product 1 (i.e., the software).” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51); see also id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51; Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Griswold, however, does not state that license datagram 3 identifies the software separately from the product. Rather, Griswold sates that datagram 3 contains a number of fields, including product model number 24 that identifies product 1. Ex. 1006, 6:45–48. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that license datagram 3 identifies the software separately from the product. Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have understood that, in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content, the monitor must first identify the software so that information identifying the software can be transmitted in the license datagram for evaluation at the licensors site, is conclusory and unsupported. See Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Thus, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Griswold teaches the” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,406,603 - Tripadvisor, LLC v. Mimzi, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · IPR2019-01080 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 7–18 are unpatentable over Roth and Ng; claims 1, 2, and 4, 7–18 are unpatentable over Roth and Fortescue; claim 3 and claims 1, 10, and 16 are not shown unpatentable on …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the invention, “would have (i) had a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a closely related field, and about 1–2 years of practical experience in that field; or (ii) had a master’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering or a closely related field.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 55). Patent Owner argues “POSITA must have some familiarity with social network databases (the technology at issue) in addition to Petitioner’s proposed general experience in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering.” PO Resp. 15. On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of person of ordinary skill in the art, and adopt it for purposes of this Decision. Although the claims of the ʼ981 Patent recite searching a social network database, we find the fields of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Computer Engineering would provide knowledge related to social networks and database search at a level commensurate with the disclosure of the ʼ981 Patent, and, thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that our analysis below” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments and the fully developed trial record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The ʼ981 Patent describes metadata as data that includes “date data, time data, name data or location data.” Ex. 1001, 2:31–32. Figures 1 and 2 of the ʼ981 Patent list several examples of metadata, including, “Date of call, dictation or message,” “Start time,” “End Time,” Duration,” “Phone #,” “Phone # other party,” “Name,” “Name of other party,” “Date of Synopsis,” “Start time of Synopsis,” “End time of Synopsis,” “Duration of Synopsis,” “Location start,” “Location time 1,” “Location at end,” “Loc. Start synopsis,” and “Loc. End synopsis.” As can be seen, the ʼ981 Patent describes metadata broadly as encompassing a variety of data associated with various uses of the mobile device, such as calls, texts, dictation, photos, and the like. Patent Owner does not provide sufficient evidence that the word “associated” means “attached” in the context of the claim. The ʼ981 Patent does not use the term “attached” anywhere to describe the metadata associated with the spoken request, nor has Patent Owner identified the use of the term anywhere in the intrinsic evidence. Patent Owner cites Figures 1 and 2 of the ʼ981 Patent as supporting its construction but Figures 1 and 2 show that a time offset and location may be added to the transcript for each the time and location information. The claim, however, recites that metadata be associated with the spoken request, not that it be added to the transcript. Ultimately, we fail to see how these embodiments show that time and location are attached to the spoken request. In light of the parties’ arguments regarding unpatentability, we determine that we need not further construe the term “metadata associated with the spoken request.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence and the fully developed trial record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. The ʼ981 Patent states that it discloses “[a] system and method for providing social-network (Centralized Community Search database)—provided outputs to a mobile-electronic-device user in response to the user’s spoken request.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ʼ981 Patent explains that a user may wish to transmit their “text messages, photos, videos, call and voice annotations or synopsis (with speech-recognized text and location data), to a Centralized Community Search database” and that the user may designate this content to be public and “be shared with anyone via the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 14:64– 15:6. The ʼ981 Patent calls the public sharing of information as “Location Blogging.” See Ex. 1001, 15:1–6. The ʼ981 Patent explains that the publicly shared content contributed to the Centralized Community Search database may include information such as “a review of a restaurant or business.” Ex. 1001, 15:7–15. The Centralized Community Search database “may be searched or mined based on social network or type of information, restaurant location.” Ex. 1001, 15:22–26. Although the ʼ981 Patent describes information being stored in a centralized community search database, it does not restrict the community in any way nor does it describe the database as storing interpersonal relationships between community members. We find insufficient support in the ʼ981 Patent for such a limitation. Moreover, we find no support for Patent Owner’s argument that a social network database has a specific structure with relational tables and links between tables and between individuals, nor any support for the database being dynamic and two-way. We therefore decline to import such limitations into the claim. For purposes of this Decision, we do not consider whether the term “social network” should be given patentable weight. As explained below, even if we give the term patentable weight, when properly construed, the relied upon references teach a social network database. The ʼ981 Patent describes a centralized database that stores information, such as text messages, photos, videos, road warnings and restaurant reviews, accessible by anyone on the Internet, without disclosing or requiring the storage of interpersonal relationships. In light of the parties’ arguments regarding unpatentability, we need not further construe the term “social network database.”” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner has demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Roth with Fortescue. Both references relate to performing internet searches and both discuss searching for restaurants. On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill would have considered adding Fortescue’s social network elements and the ability to rank based on various factors to benefit Roth’s that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Fortescue to add Roth’s speech to text feature for additional convenience for the user.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,128,981 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,128,981 - ZTE (USA), Inc. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Cywee Group Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2020 · IPR2019-01203 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied CyWee’s rehearing request, leaving intact its decision allowing joined petitioner LGE to oppose CyWee’s revised motion to amend.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). 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.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsDecided for petitioner
“In our Rehearing Decision, we determined that “the adversarial system is better served if we allow a Petitioner to raise [statutory, regulatory, or patentability] issues in response to CyWee’s Revised Motion to Amend.” Reh’g Dec. 8. Therefore, we held that LGE may present arguments and evidence, independently from ZTE, in response to CyWee’s Revised Motion to Amend, and that LGE may request an oral hearing limited solely to the issues raised in the Revised Motion to Amend. Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,441,438 - ZTE (USA), Inc. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Cywee Group Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00143 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied CyWee’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision allowing joined petitioner LGE to oppose the Revised Motion to Amend.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). 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.” Id.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,441,438 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01584 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution of review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 39, and 41 under its General Plastic analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for patent owner
“petitions are only relevant if Petitioner was a party to the prior proceedings, or had a relationship with the prior petitioners. Reh’g Req. 7. But a review of the cited precedential decision does not reflect Petitioner’s suggestion. See General Plastic, Paper No. 19 at 15−19 (“Our intent in formulating the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into account.”). General Plastic does not proscribe panels of the Board from considering whether a subsequent petitioner knew of the prior art cited in the subsequent petition at the time of filing of the first petition, per the second factor. Similarly, we are not barred, under General Plastic, from considering the length of time that elapsed between when a petitioner learned of the art and when the petition, based on that art, was filed, or whether petitioner provides an adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions, per the fourth and fifth factors. Additionally, we are not persuaded that the factors enumerated in General Plastic, as viewed through the lens of Valve Corp., must all be limited by any possible relationship between the multiple petitioners. Although the discussion of the first factor in Valve Corp. makes clear that “any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors” must be considered, the remaining factors take into account the knowledge of the second petitioner irrespective of a specific relationship. See Valve Corp., Paper 11 at 9−15. As such, the relationship between the different petitioners certainly has some bearing on what the second petitioner knew, when they knew it, and when they acted upon it, but the consideration of the second through seventh factors does not require a showing of a specific relationship between the petitioners to consider those factors.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,519,005 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00282 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“a party requests rehearing on a decision on whether to institute inter partes review, we “review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). 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 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
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We disagree. Nowhere in the cited passages in the Petition does Samsung argue that we should construe the term “row wrap-around connections” according to the explicit construction that Samsung now suggests for the plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 10–11, 25–30. Rather, Samsung argued that “Petitioners do not believe any term requires explicit construction.” Pet. 10–11. In the Reply, Samsung argued that all of the terms in the challenged claims should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. See Reply 1, 4–5. However, apart from arguing that Samsung had proposed construing limitation 1C in the co-pending district court proceeding according to its plain and ordinary meaning,3 Samsung did not propose any specific construction for the phrase “row wrap-around connection,” or point to any evidence as to what the ordinary and customary meaning of that phrase was to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we decline to adopt Samsung’s new proposed construction on rehearing.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We determined that Samsung had not provided sufficient evidence of its proposed motivation to combine the two references. See Dec. 16 (“[N]either Samsung nor Dr. Wolfe supports this conclusion with any evidence on the preliminary record.” (citing In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3))). In particular, we found that “Dr. Wolfe does not explain how or why the combination of Barkan and Tagg would minimize RC delay or allow for the use of lengthier columns and rows of electrodes, or cite to any facts, data, or authorities to support that opinion.” Dec. 17. We stated that “there is no evidence in the record suggesting that RC delay was a recognized problem . . . or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a connection to both sides of a row of electrodes would be a solution to that problem.” Id. We also stated that Dr. Wolfe does not “provide any detail as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Barkan’s leads 160 to incorporate external connections such as those in Tagg.” Id. (citing Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,821,502 - Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 9, 2020 · IPR2020-00420 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ericsson’s rehearing request and left in place the discretionary denial of institution for claims 1–5, 7, and 17 under General Plastic.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for patent owner
“considered whether Petitioner knew of prior art which disclosed the same material as what the allegedly recently discovered references disclose. Decision 10–11. The additional consideration was prompted by the Petition’s characterization of Alamouti as merely disclosing an “implementation detail” omitted by the Merakos and Kay. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner argues that the additional consideration of the criticality of the disclosure contained in the allegedly recently discovered prior art applies a new standard that is inconsistent with General Plastic. Reh’g Req. 11. We disagree. First, there is no inconsistency because General Plastic does not prohibit the consideration. Second, the consideration is not a new standard, because, in our view, it already is implicit in General Plastic. Typically, there is nothing to trigger it and an assumption is usually made that absence of the recently discovered reference is what kept Petitioner from filing the petition earlier. Here, the circumstance is different, because Alamouti, and Ling evidently as well, are used by Petitioner only to provide relatively less significant implementation details compared to what Merakos and Kay disclose. Third, Petitioner does not point to anything in General Plastic which approves a hypothetical petitioner’s possibly substituting a reference it has known for a long time with a recently obtained reference that discloses the same, to justify a delay in filing a petition. Thus, it is not” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“every single document in the related litigation. It was incumbent upon Petitioner to submit and identify material to support its assertions. Although we were willing to inspect the Complaint and any Amended Complaint, we were not willing to go further. It matters not whether a plaintiff asserting patent infringement is required to identify all asserted claims in the its assertion, and we need not even have looked in the Complaint.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s accounting must begin from when it first learned that Patent Owner had filed suit accusing products designed and manufactured by Petitioner of infringing claims of the ’079 patent.” Decision 12. Rather than accounting for the entire 10 month period from March 26, 2019 to January 17, 2020, the Petition only addressed 4 months. Pet. 73. Now, in the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner provides for consideration an explanation that purportedly covers the entire 10 month period. Reh’g Req. 7–10. The discussion and change of focus from 4 months to 10 months arguments after the original arguments are rejected. Accordingly, we decline to consider the new explanation that purportedly accounts for the full 10 month period. C. slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,868,079 - Square, Inc. v. 4361423 Canada Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 17, 2020 · IPR2019-01651 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Square’s rehearing request; all claims remain in trial on all asserted grounds, including obviousness of claims 1 and 4 over Bear and Vrotsos.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“At this stage of the proceeding, whether our statement was correct is of no moment, because we instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds of unpatentability. Dec. 38. As explained in the Decision,” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,443,239 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 7, 2020 · IPR2019-01541 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 because Google did not show an abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,016,676 - Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 18, 2020 · IPR2020-00420 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the General Plastic factors and additional circumstances favored discretionary denial under § 314(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“relationship” for purposes of analyzing follow-on petitions between different petitioners can be created by a subsequent petitioner who uses the former petitioner’s work as a menu or roadmap to arrive at the follow-on petition, citing Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020). Prelim. Resp. 10. Based on the record before us, and as explained below, we find that Petitioner did use the Petition in IPR038 as a menu or roadmap in preparing the Petition here, but disagree that that fact creates a “significant relationship.”” slip op. at 8
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“for the third time, particularly on the same ground for which review was instituted for claim 17 in IPR038. Note that “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” See USPTO, Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial) (“USPTO Guidance”). Petitioner has not demonstrated a need for an additional petition which challenges claim 17 for a third time, where both earlier petitions resulted in institution of trial and where the alleged ground of unpatentability for claim 17 here is the same as that raised in one of the two earlier petitions.11 The inclusion of claim 17 in the Petition undermines Petitioner’s argument that it should be entitled to challenge claims 2–5 and 7 which were not challenged in any previous petition. Indeed, the inclusion of claim 17 is unnecessary for any petition challenging claims 1–5 and 7.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“Having considered all of the factors discussed above, we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our delegated discretion not to institute review. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted on any claim over any alleged ground of unpatentability.” slip op. at 16
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,868,079
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.