- PTAB · Mar 30, 2023 · DER2017-00031 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove that any of Respondent’s claims 24–36 was derived from Petitioner’s inventor because Respondent proved earlier conception of the disclosed subject matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Conclusion As explained above, Petitioner’s proven time of conception and communication of the subject matter of “the invention disclosed to the respondent” is “February 14, 2014 4:04:17 PM EST.” Respondent’s proven time of conception of the subject matter of “the invention disclosed to the respondent” is “Feb 14, 2014 12:55 pm.” If Respondent’s time is Eastern Standard Time, then Respondent’s conception precedes Petitioner’s conception and communication by 3 hours and 9 minutes. If Respondent’s time is Pacific Standard Time, it precedes Petitioner’s conception and communication by 9 minutes. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Bradley Burnam conceived of “the invention disclosed to the respondent” prior to Marc Selner’s conception of that same subject matter, and Petitioner has not shown that Bradley Burnam communicated “the invention disclosed to the respondent” to Marc Selner prior to Marc Selner’s conception of the same subject matter. As a result, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any one of claims 24–36 of Respondent’s Application 15/549,111 is derived from Bradley Burnam. J.” slip op. at 51
- ExcludeNot reached
“We need not decide Respondent’s Motion to Exclude because, even considering all of the evidence Respondent seeks to exclude, Petitioner still does not prevail. Further, Respondent’s reasons for excluding Exhibit 1107 do not address admissibility, but rather implicate the proper weight to give to Marc Selner’s cross-examination testimony. See, e.g, Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (Final Written Decision) (“[T]he Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal . . . is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented.”). Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 52
- Expert testimonyOther
“testimony. There also is no indication that Brad Meeuwsen possessed or considered all of the evidence that is now before us, in particular Exhibits 2067, 2067A, and 2041. Further, inventorship is a legal question. Univ. of Colorado Found. Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 342 F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although Brad Meeuwsen as a fact witness may testify to what he heard or received from Bradley Burnam or Marc Selner, and such testimony would be probative, any testimony from Brad Meeuwsen with regard to the ultimate conclusion of inventorship carries no weight.” slip op. at 44
None - PTAB · May 12, 2015 · IPR2014-00242 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–3, 5, and 6 and denied substitute claims 7–11 because the Patent Owner failed to establish written-description support for claim 10 and patentability over prior art for claims 7–9 and 11.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“Unlike examination, entry of the proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review is not automatic. As the moving party, Patent Owner must establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner bears the burden to show, inter alia, that a reasonable number of substitute claims is proposed, there is no broadening of scope, the proposed claims are supported adequately by the written description of the application as filed originally, and the proposed claims are patentable over the prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; Idle Free Sys. Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (“Idle Free”). We address each of these requirements in turn.” slip op. at 10
- 112 supportDenied
“its Motion to Amend to set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 12
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“2. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 7 as a substitute for claim 1, claim 8 as a substitute for claim 2, claim 9 as a substitute for claim 3, claim 10 as a substitute for claim 5, and claim 11 as a substitute for claim 6. Mot. 1–5. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. Id. No limitations from the challenged claims were deleted in the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’047 patent. See Mot. 1. Petitioner does not dispute this assertion (“patent owner’s proposed substitute claims . . . add ancillary features”). Opp. 1. We are persuaded that each of the proposed substitute claims does not enlarge the scope of each of the challenged patent claims it intends to replace.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Decision to Institute, we determined that no explicit construction was necessary for any of the claim terms beyond their ordinary and customary meanings. Dec. to Inst. 8–9. Neither party has challenged that determination, and based on the record adduced during trial, we see no reason to provide an express construction for any term. For the proposed substitute claims, Patent Owner states that: Like the terms in the original claims, all of [the newly added claim terms in the proposed substitute claims] are simple [claim terms] whose ordinary meaning applies and for which no construction is required, with the possible exception of “member” and “group.” As explained in the specification (Ex. 1) at 3:2–4, “The present invention comprises a method . . . for allowing on-line communications with members of a group of recipients for whom the invention has been implemented.” In the context of proposed independent claim [7], the claimed invention requires that “said first computer system storing information about said plurality of members in a database.” Thus, in the context of the proposed amended claims[,] a “group” is a group of a plurality of members for whom the first computer system has stored information in a database. Mot. 7. Petitioner does not propose alternative constructions for the claim terms “member” or “group.” We cannot discern how the constructions proffered by Patent Owner add any clarity to the terms “member” and “group,” which are simple and commonly understood terms. We decline to provide an express construction for either “member” or “group.”” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,499,047 - PTAB · Oct 28, 2014 · IPR2014-00066 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions, terminated the Rackspace inter partes reviews as to all parties, and granted confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The parties further argue that maintaining the Rackspace inter partes reviews, after the parties have settled their disputes, would be contrary to public policy and would discourage future settlements by removing a significant motivation for settlement. Mot. 5. In view of the circumstances, we agree. Indeed, there are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the parties to a proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Generally, the Board expects that” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“3. However, Google’s Petitions were not filed timely in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”).3 Google could have, but did not, file a petition for inter partes review with the one-year time period. More significantly, Google’s Motions for Joinder were not filed timely in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”).4 Google fails to provide sufficient reasons as to why we should exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to waive the one-month time limit for filing a Motion for Joinder.5” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“3. However, Google’s Petitions were not filed timely in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”).3 Google could have, but did not, file a petition for inter partes review with the one-year time period. More significantly, Google’s Motions for Joinder were not filed timely in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”).4 Google fails to provide sufficient reasons as to why we should exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to waive the one-month time limit for filing a Motion for Joinder.5” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 6,928,442 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00260 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00260 as to all parties, before deciding whether to institute review.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Oracle’s petition was filed on May 2, 2013, and Clouding has not yet filed its Preliminary Response. The Board has not yet determined whether an inter partes review should be instituted.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00260 is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’s joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under the 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is also GRANTED.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 5,825,891
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.