- Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Medivis’s rehearing request, leaving in place the decision that claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references’ public accessibility was not established.
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, a reply, or a sur-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. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented in turn.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“accessibility, except the references Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves. This is insufficient and tantamount to submitting no proof of public accessibility. To find public accessibility, we must determine that a “document has been 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.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoted in Dec. 26–27. Petitioner has insufficiently explained, by a preponderance of the evidence, how Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves answer the question of whether they have been disseminated or otherwise made available to those of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we did not overlook or misapprehend any evidence of public accessibility on pages 29–30 of the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“declaration by reference, we exercised our discretion to address a portion of it in our Decision. Dec. 30–31. We did so because we noted that his testimony was “particularly deficient for [the 3D Slicer] reference.” Id. at 30. Petitioner now asserts that in doing so, we “misapprehended or overlooked the logic that application documentation” like 3D Slicer’s “must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application.” Req. 7. But Petitioner’s assertion that “application documentation must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application” is a new argument, not raised in the Petition or Reply. Even if Petitioner’s assertion were correct, it falls far short of the evidence required to prove that 3D Slicer was actually disseminated to interested members of the public. See, e.g., Weber, 92 F.4th at 1068. Thus, Petitioner’s argument fails to persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended anything.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,004,271 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and examiner error was not shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. 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 may be determined 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” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Advanced Bionics, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and determined not to institute inter partes review. Dec. 7−26 (citing Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmbh, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential)). As to Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office. Id. at 10−13. Under Part 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that Petitioner failed to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’654 patent. Id. at 14−26.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are new arguments raised for the first time in its Rehearing Request. Petitioner acknowledges that “NRG and Hollmer were not cited in the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 10. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that it “could not have anticipated the Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Droplets decision, nor the Board’s reliance on this mischaracterization,” and that Petitioner was not authorized to file a reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Id.; see also id. at 2−3, fn.1. Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize and we did not misapprehend Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 11–12; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). It is Petitioner’s burden to identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision to Institute. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, section 1.57 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is not a “statute,” but a regulation that became effective on September 21, 2004. See 69 Fed. Reg. 56,482. The ’882 application, which incorporated Chu ’886 by reference, was filed on September 8, 1998, and issued as Chu ’330 on February 5, 2002. Ex. 1005, codes (21), (22), (45), (60), 6:1–7. The ’654 patent, which incorporated the ’882 application by reference, is a reissue of Application No. 09/312,199 (“the ’199 application”) filed on May 14, 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,634,777 (“the ’777 patent”), issued on November 4, 2003. Ex. 1001, codes (63), (64); 5:63–67. Both the ’882 application (issued as Chu ’330) and the ’199 application (reissued as the ’654 patent) were filed and issued as patents prior to the effective date, September 21, 2004, of 37 C.F.R. § 1.57. Petitioner does not explain why the applicant should have complied with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57, which did not exist at the time of filing of those applications or issuance of those patents that incorporated by reference Chu ’886 and the ’882 application. Pet. 7–8, 10−17; Req. Reh’g 1−12. We decline to apply 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 retroactively to the incorporation by reference statements submitted in the ’882 application and the ’199 application.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - PTAB · Dec 6, 2021 · IPR2021-00605 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and material Examiner error was not shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. 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 may be determined 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” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under Part 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework, Petitioner has the burden to show that “[t]he Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330, Chu ’185, and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the ’768 Patent claims,” as Petitioner alleges in its § 325(d) analysis. Pet. 7, 9−18. Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments of Examiner error.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are new arguments raised for the first time in its Rehearing Request. Petitioner acknowledges that “Hollmer and NRG were not cited in the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 10. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that it “could not have anticipated the Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Droplets decision, nor the Board’s reliance on this mischaracterization,” and that Petitioner was not authorized to file a reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Id.; see also id. at 2−3, fn.1. Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize and we did not misapprehend Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 11; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). It is Petitioner’s burden to identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision to Institute. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“codes (21), (22), (45), (60), 6:1–7. The initial parent application in the ’768 patent’s priority chain, U.S. Application No. 09/569,758 (“the ’758 application”), which incorporated the ’882 application by reference, was filed on May 12, 2000, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,718,415 B1 (“the ’415 patent”) on April 6, 2004. See Ex. 1001, code (63); Ex. 1008, code (45), 4:50–53. Both the ’882 application (issued as Chu ’330) and the ’758 application (issued as the ’415 patent) were filed and issued as patents prior to the effective date, September 21, 2004, of 37 C.F.R. § 1.57. Petitioner does not explain why the applicant should have complied with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57, which did not exist at the time of filing of those applications or issuance of those patents that incorporated by reference Chu ’886 and the ’882. Pet. 7, 9−18; Req. Reh’g 1−13. We decline to apply 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 retroactively to the incorporation by reference statements submitted in the ’882 application and the ’758 application.” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,529,768 - PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2021-00604 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and material examiner error was not shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), a petitioner who requests rehearing of a decision denying institution must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. 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 may be determined 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. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under Part II of the Advanced Bionics framework, Petitioner has the burden to show that “[t]he Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’750 Patent,” as Petitioner alleges in its § 325(d) analysis. Pet. 7, 9−18. Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize, nor did we misapprehend, Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 11; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision. Id.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner failed to show that the examiner erred in determining that Chu ’330 incorporated by reference Chu ’886 or in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’912 application. Id. at 16−21. Under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability. At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 20
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,703,750 - PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2021-00607 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving in place its § 325(d) denial of institution because it found no material examiner error.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), a petitioner who requests rehearing of a decision denying institution must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. 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 may be determined 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. U.S., 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 › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In the Decision, after applying the two-part framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, we determined to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) not to institute inter partes review. Dec. 6−22 (citing Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmbh, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential); Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17−18, 24 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph)). As to Part I of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office. Id. at 8−11. Under Part II of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that Petitioner failed to show that “[t]he Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’140 Patent.” Id. at 11−22.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are new arguments raised for the first time in its Rehearing Request. Petitioner acknowledges that Hollmer and NRG were not cited in the Petition. Id. at 10. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that it “could not have anticipated the Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Droplets decision, nor the Board’s reliance on this mischaracterization,” and that Petitioner was not authorized to file a reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Id.; see also id. at 2−3 n.1. Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize, nor did we misapprehend, Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 12; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision. Id.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Under Part II of the Advanced Bionics framework, Petitioner has the burden to show that “the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’140 Patent,” as Petitioner alleges in its § 325(d) analysis. Pet. 7−8. Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denial - Peddinghaus Corporation v. Ficep CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2020-01707 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Peddinghaus’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on claims 1–14 because Hashimoto did not disclose the claimed intersection parameters.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Reh’g Req. 7–8. Although Petitioner avers that the “identifying” of intersection parameters, or connecting holes, is completed in Hashimoto by the member totaling module before any order list is prepared, the order list is pertinent evidence for that assertion and there is nothing inappropriate in discussing that evidence. We recognize no other evidence which was identified by the Petitioner in the Petition, and Petitioner points to no such other evidence that we overlooked. Indeed, Petitioner states: “The Petition references the order list depicted in Figure 19 as merely providing a summary of the information (the ‘total’) that was previously identified and extracted by the member totaling module.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added). As we stated in our Decision, Petitioner points to no description or disclosure in Hashimoto that its member totaling module recognizes the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, from a nonconnecting hole. Dec. 27. Hashimoto’s member totaling module “automatically totals, by cross section or length, the information including the shape, length, quantity, hole shape and the hole position (design drawing information) of all the light gauge sheet steel used for the steel house existing in the CAD system” and “[b]ased on this total, an order list (steel member order list) is prepared (FIG. 19).” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Nowhere in this exhaustive list of hole information, however, is mentioned any data that identifies the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, and a non-connecting hole. Further, Petitioner’s statement on page 8 of the Rehearing Request that “hole shape” and “hole position” constitute intersection parameters is not persuasive because, from this information, it is unknown how the hole is intended to be used. Moreover, the order list of Figure 19 – which “merely shows the number of holes and the die numbers and positions of where those holes are formed”1 – is the only indicated output of the member totaling module.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“meaning of “fastening holes” changes from the first to second embodiment.3 For example, in the Background section of Hashimoto, “fastening holes” are defined generally as holes formed “in the light gauge shape steel for the fastening tools.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 4. The same Background paragraph provides examples of “fastening tools such as a tapping screw and a one-side rivet.” Id. (Emphasis added). Thus, this definition does not strictly limit fastening holes to connecting holes, since it does not foreclose the likely possibility of fastening tools including wires or wiring. Moreover, a “machine for forming the fastening holes” is also disclosed in the Background, the same “non-stationary fastening hole forming machine 5” discussed in Figures 20-21 of the second embodiment. Id. ¶ 5. Thus, when “fastening holes for passing the electrical wiring” (emphasis added) are disclosed in the discussion of Figures 20-21 in Hashimoto’s paragraph 154, there is no evidence suggesting that a different type of “fastening hole” other than what has been generally described in the Background is being mentioned. Id. ¶ 154. The same applies for the 3 The statement made in footnote 3 on pages 11–12 of the Rehearing Request that the only holes in Figure 18 are joints only establishes that the holes in Figure 18 may be connecting holes, not all “fastening holes” in Hashimoto. disclosure that “fastening hole information includ[es]…[where] the wiring holes [are] formed in the stud” in paragraph 156 and how character c in Figure 23 “designates a hole for electrical wiring or a fastening hole for mounting the stud on the structural face plate” (emphasis added) in paragraph 157. Id. ¶¶ 156–157. Thus, it is a much more reasonable reading that in all embodiments of Hashimoto, the definition of “fastening holes” includes both connecting holes and non-connecting holes – such as those for wiring.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As we stated in our Decision, Petitioner points to no description or disclosure in Hashimoto that its member totaling module recognizes the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, from a nonconnecting hole. Dec. 27. Hashimoto’s member totaling module “automatically totals, by cross section or length, the information including the shape, length, quantity, hole shape and the hole position (design drawing information) of all the light gauge sheet steel used for the steel house existing in the CAD system” and “[b]ased on this total, an order list (steel member order list) is prepared (FIG. 19).” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Nowhere in this exhaustive list of hole information, however, is mentioned any data that identifies the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, and a non-connecting hole. Further, Petitioner’s statement on page 8 of the Rehearing Request that “hole shape” and “hole position” constitute intersection parameters is not persuasive because, from this information, it is unknown how the hole is intended to be used. Moreover, the order list of Figure 19 – which “merely shows the number of holes and the die numbers and positions of where those holes are formed”1 – is the only indicated output of the member totaling module.” slip op. at 3
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,974,719 - Shenzhen Mediatek Tong Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Noco CompanyRehearing deniedPTAB · May 17, 2021 · IPR2020-01387 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–3, 5, 8–17, 19–21, and 23 because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion.
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
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“We recognize that Paragraph 50 of Zhang describes two ways to measure the voltage “at the two terminals” of the vehicle battery, and the other way is by the small teeth of the output power clip. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50. But Zhang describes the two ways as occurring “at the same time,” and not as alternative implementations. Thus, measurements at both points are taken to obtain the voltage at the two terminals of the vehicle battery. Dr. Hartup does not address or explain how a measurement can be taken at the input terminal of the DC contactor that would be indicative of the voltage of the external vehicle battery connected to the output terminal of the DC contactor, if the DC contactor is not already closed. Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. The Petition does not address Zhang’s disclosure of measuring the voltage of the vehicle battery on the input side of the DC contactor at the same time a measurement is taken by the small teeth of the output power clip. Paper 9, 33 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“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
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,007,015 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00202 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution of review on all challenged claims and grounds in place.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“I. ANALYSIS When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion 1 Patent Owner also requested rehearing by the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to “clarify the date from which Fintiv Factor 4 should be analyzed, namely, the Petition’s filing date.” Req. Reh’g 1; Ex. 3001. On October 27, 2020, POP denied Patent Owner’s request for review. Paper 19. may be determined 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. See 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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. For example, in the Board’s informative decision in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.—Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”), the panel considered and gave weight to Petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Here, we also considered the parties’ more recent efforts in the underlying litigation to narrow the issues at trial, which reduced concerns of duplicative efforts between the District Court and the Board and minimized the potential for conflicting decisions. See, e.g., Dec. 15–16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,212,586 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00200 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in its Fintiv analysis and decision to institute review of claims 1–5 and 8–12.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“may be determined 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. See 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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. For example, in the Board’s informative decision in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.—Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”), the panel considered and gave weight to Petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Here, we also considered the parties’ more recent efforts in the underlying litigation to narrow the issues at trial, which reduced concerns of duplicative efforts between the District Court and the Board and minimized the potential for conflicting decisions. See, e.g., Dec. 16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,084,991 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00204 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Maxell’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place because it reasonably weighed the Fintiv factors and did not abuse its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined 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. See 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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. In the Board’s informative Sand Revolution decision, the panel considered and gave weight to a petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Just as in Sand Revolution, we focused on the effects of Petitioner’s proposal to withdraw Van der Salm here: alleviating concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board and minimizing the potential for conflicting decisions. Dec. 16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it was unreasonable for us to consider Petitioner’s post-filing proposal to withdraw Van der Salm.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,928,306
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.