- Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 26, 2020 · IPR2019-01209 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because the Petition lacked adequate evidence and reasoning to support the proposed obviousness combination.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). “An abuse of discretion is found if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As the Petition makes clear, the linchpin of Petitioner’s argument for modifying Brenner is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide of Brenner’s device. See Pet. 21 (“Thus, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the security device of Brenner is prone to reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide.”); id. at 34 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that . . . the security device will likely suffer from reliability issues associated with signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. at 35 (“[T]he optical transceivers of the sensor unit and the base unit may not be able to reliably communicate with one another due to optical signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. 6 The Petition and our Decision refer to this book by its title (“Communications Standard Dictionary”), but Petitioner now refers to it by the last name of its author (“Weik”). Compare Pet. 6, 19, with Req. Reh’g 2. For convenience and consistency with the Request for Rehearing, we refer to the book herein as “Weik.” Notably, Petitioner did not submit Weik as a prior art printed publication to be considered as part of an unpatentability ground, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (2018). See Pet. 5. Rather, the Petition cites Weik as support for its proposed claim construction and as support for an alleged “well-known fact” that an optical waveguide subjected to bending or winding is prone to signal loss. Id. at 6, 19. skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 17–18 (citing Pet. 21, 35). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As the Petition makes clear, the linchpin of Petitioner’s argument for modifying Brenner is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide of Brenner’s device. See Pet. 21 (“Thus, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the security device of Brenner is prone to reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide.”); id. at 34 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that . . . the security device will likely suffer from reliability issues associated with signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. at 35 (“[T]he optical transceivers of the sensor unit and the base unit may not be able to reliably communicate with one another due to optical signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. 6 The Petition and our Decision refer to this book by its title (“Communications Standard Dictionary”), but Petitioner now refers to it by the last name of its author (“Weik”). Compare Pet. 6, 19, with Req. Reh’g 2. For convenience and consistency with the Request for Rehearing, we refer to the book herein as “Weik.” Notably, Petitioner did not submit Weik as a prior art printed publication to be considered as part of an unpatentability ground, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (2018). See Pet. 5. Rather, the Petition cites Weik as support for its proposed claim construction and as support for an alleged “well-known fact” that an optical waveguide subjected to bending or winding is prone to signal loss. Id. at 6, 19. skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 17–18 (citing Pet. 21, 35). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that we overlooked evidence from Weik relied on in the Petition. Our Decision considered Weik’s description of a “microbend loss” that was quoted in the Petition: “the optical power loss caused by a microbend, i.e., a small bend, kink, or abrupt discontinuity in the direction of the optical axis of fibers, in the core-cladding interface surface, or both, usually caused by cabling, wrapping the fiber around drums and (citing Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002, 576)). But Petitioner does not identify, nor do we see, any assertion in the Petition that Weik shows a microbend loss can cause a “total failure” of an optical signal to reach its destination. See Req. Reh’g 9; Pet. 19–20, 34–35. Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing also does not identify where the Petition addressed Weik’s statement that microbends can cause radiative loss. See Pet. 19–20, 34–35. Because these arguments were not presented in the first instance in the Petition, we could not have overlooked them in our Decision.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,062,253 - Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 26, 2020 · IPR2019-01206 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because the Petition lacked sufficient evidence and reasoning to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). “An abuse of discretion is found if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“ordinary skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 18 (citing Pet. 21, 36–37). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“ordinary skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 18 (citing Pet. 21, 36–37). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,818,274 - Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 21, 2020 · IPR2020-00014 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution for claims 1–6, 12, 13, and 15–18 because Vanguard did not show a sufficient, supported rationale to combine the prior art.
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 1 US 2012/0019383 A1, filed July 20, 2010, published Jan. 26, 2012 (Ex. 1003). 2 US 5,317,305, filed Jan. 30, 1992, issued May 31, 1994 (Ex. 1006). specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the 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). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Vanguard in turn.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that there would have been a sufficient reason to combine the relevant teachings of Wheeler, Fawcett, and Campman states: “A crowded retail store would not only make monitoring the security of display merchandise more difficult, but also increase the ambient noise thereby requiring a louder audible alarm to notify employees of a theft.” Req. Reh’g 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1012 ¶ 115). This testimony, however, does not cite to any underlying facts or data and, therefore, is entitled to little or no weight. See 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.”). Without the support of any underlying facts or data, Mr. Figh’s testimony suffers from the same hindsight reasoning that we discussed in the Decision. See Dec. 19. That is, only teachings of the ’082 patent itself suggest a need to increase the audible level of an alarm in a retail store, and it appears that Vanguard has used this particular teaching as a guide to combine the teachings of the asserted prior art references in the manner required to account for all the limitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, Fawcett teaches a dual alarm system for retail stores (Ex. 1003, code (57), ¶¶ 8, 46, 47), and there is no indication that Fawcett’s teachings are limited in any way to uncrowded retail stores. Also, Fawcett’s dual alarm system already is specifically designed for retail stores (id.), yet Vanguard proposes to modify this design with features in Campman’s personal alert safety system (Pet. 33–35). Campman provides a distress alarm that can be heard for a distance of a half-mile or more (Pet. 43, 84; Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:22–38, 6:30–32)), and the only reason Vanguard gives for using such an alarm in Fawcett’s retail store setting is that it would have provided a louder alarm (see Pet. 33–34). On the current record, we maintain that Vanguard has not established persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make Fawcett’s dual alarm system louder at all, much less to the extent taught by Campman.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“that there would have been a sufficient reason to combine the relevant teachings of Wheeler, Fawcett, and Campman states: “A crowded retail store would not only make monitoring the security of display merchandise more difficult, but also increase the ambient noise thereby requiring a louder audible alarm to notify employees of a theft.” Req. Reh’g 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1012 ¶ 115). This testimony, however, does not cite to any underlying facts or data and, therefore, is entitled to little or no weight. See 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.”). Without the support of any underlying facts or data, Mr. Figh’s testimony suffers from the same hindsight reasoning that we discussed in the Decision. See Dec. 19. That is, only teachings of the ’082 patent itself suggest a need to increase the audible level of an alarm in a retail store, and it appears that Vanguard has used this particular teaching as a guide to combine the teachings of the asserted prior art references in the manner required to account for all the limitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, Fawcett teaches a dual alarm system for retail stores (Ex. 1003, code (57), ¶¶ 8, 46, 47), and there is no indication that Fawcett’s teachings are limited in any way to uncrowded retail stores. Also, Fawcett’s dual alarm system already is specifically designed for retail stores (id.), yet Vanguard proposes to modify this design with features in Campman’s personal alert safety system (Pet. 33–35). Campman provides a distress alarm that can be heard for a distance of a half-mile or more (Pet. 43, 84; Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:22–38, 6:30–32)), and the only reason Vanguard gives for using such an alarm in Fawcett’s retail store setting is that it would have provided a louder alarm (see Pet. 33–34). On the current record, we maintain that Vanguard has not established persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make Fawcett’s dual alarm system louder at all, much less to the extent taught by Campman.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner
“testimony suffers from the same hindsight reasoning that we discussed in the Decision. See Dec. 19. That is, only teachings of the ’082 patent itself suggest a need to increase the audible level of an alarm in a retail store, and it appears that Vanguard has used this particular teaching as a guide to combine the teachings of the asserted prior art references in the manner required to account for all the limitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, Fawcett teaches a dual alarm system for retail stores (Ex. 1003, code (57), ¶¶ 8, 46, 47), and there is no indication that Fawcett’s teachings are limited in any way to uncrowded retail stores. Also, Fawcett’s dual alarm system already is specifically designed for retail stores (id.), yet Vanguard proposes to modify this design with features in Campman’s personal alert safety system (Pet. 33–35). Campman provides a distress alarm that can be heard for a distance of a half-mile or more (Pet. 43, 84; Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:22–38, 6:30–32)), and the only reason Vanguard gives for using such an alarm in Fawcett’s retail store setting is that it would have provided a louder alarm (see Pet. 33–34). On the current record, we maintain that Vanguard has not established persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make Fawcett’s dual alarm system louder at all, much less to the extent taught by Campman.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,008,082 - Sports Nutrition Research, Ltd. v. Chemi NutraRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2020 · DER2013-00001 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner showed no abuse of discretion in finding insufficient evidence of derivation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). After considering the Request for Rehearing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in denying institution. For reasons discussed below, we decline to modify the Decision. Accordingly, the Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In essence, Petitioner is arguing that a derivation proceeding should always be instituted no matter how deficient is the initial evidence presented by Petitioner in the Petition, because both Petitioner and Respondent can submit evidence after institution of trial. We disagree. In the above-quoted argument, Petitioner is referring to hypothetical evidence “to be” developed during trial. We cannot make a decision on whether to institute trial based on non-existent evidence. We properly reviewed the evidence submitted by Petitioner and determined that that evidence does not meet the substantial evidence standard for instituting a derivation proceeding.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“The constitutional arguments are without merit. The Federal Circuit has held that there is “no constitutional infirmity in [an] institution decision as the statute clearly bestows such authority on the Director pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314.” Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1340. Arthrex’s reasoning likewise applies to derivation proceedings under the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. § 135(a)(1). The Decision will not be vacated. Nor will a new panel be appointed.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“of the MPEP. Paper 17, 4. These authorities, however, articulate general principles and do not support Petitioner’s assertion that the specific wherein clause at issue here represents merely an intended result and thus should not be accorded weight in determining patentability. Indeed, in Hoffer, the Court upheld the district court’s reading of the “whereby clause” at issue there as an actual limitation and not merely an intended result.3 Hoffer, 405 F.3d at 1330. “[W]hen the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. at 1329.” slip op. at 9
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 10,869,843 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01091 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution for claims 1, 13, 25-27, 29, 30, 32, 34-36, and 166, finding no abuse of discretion.
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 addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the 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). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner entities in turn.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“argument because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. Although Petitioner entities affirmatively discuss the Rackspace IPR in the Petition, they only do so in the context of explaining that the Petition is not a follow-on petition to the petition filed in the Rackspace IPR because it involves a different petitioner, different claims, different asserted grounds of unpatentability, and different arguments and evidence. See Pet. 12–13. Indeed, Petitioner entities do not address squarely Francisco’s disclosure of periodically varying the algorithm in the Petition, much less take the position that periodically varying the algorithm is an “optional” feature. See generally Pet. Petitioner entities’ failure to address Francisco’s periodically varying algorithm was the reason for our concern with the Petition, especially given that Petitioner entities bear the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dec. 24–25 (explaining that Petitioner entities “do[] not address Francisco’s disclosure of ‘periodically vary[ing]’ the algorithm . . . [which] is problematic as [Petitioner entities] bear[] the burden of demonstrating . . . unpatentability” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ex. 1003, 2:43)). We did, however, further explain that, even assuming that there may be an embodiment in Francisco in which the algorithm would not be varied (a fact that Petitioner entities did not establish), we would have still exercised our discretion to deny institution given the other shortcomings of the Petition. Id. at 25. Accordingly, our Decision Denying Institution did consider the possibility of embodiments where Francisco’s algorithm would not be varied, even though Petitioner entities did not address this issue squarely in the Petition itself.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of the claim construction arguments presented by Petitioner entities with respect to the claim term “message digest function” included arguing that the specification of the ’420 patent does not define this claim term explicitly, but that the specification “generally describes it as ‘reduc[ing] a data block B of arbitrary length to a relatively small, fixed size identifier.” Dec. 11 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”) 40). Petitioner entities also argued that the specification cites well-known cryptographic hash functions as examples of a “message digest function”—namely, MD4, MD5, and Secure Hash Algorithm. Id. For purposes of claim construction, Petitioner entities did not rely on the two related, but different, patents previously challenged by Rackspace and Apple that include claims reciting the claim terms “message digest function or hash function”; nor do Petitioner entities predicate their claim construction arguments presented and developed in the Petition on the positions taken by PersonalWeb in those three cases. See generally Pet. Notably, Petitioner entities do not even allege in the Request for Rehearing that our construction of the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” is incorrect. In any event, Petitioner entities do not direct us to, nor are we aware of, controlling precedent that prevents PersonalWeb from raising a claim construction argument with respect to the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” that appear in independent claim 25 of the ’420 patent merely because PersonalWeb chose not to raise the same claim construction argument when responding to previous challenges of two related, but different, patents. The cases relied on by Petitioner entities to support their new argument are distinguishable from the circumstances presented here. See Req. Reh’g 3. The Google case involved an inter partes review in which a Board panel ultimately adopted previous district court” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument presented by Petitioner entities because they only presented and developed this argument in the context of addressing claim 29, which depends from independent claim 25 and further recites “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits.” See Pet. 45–47. In essence, Petitioner entities request that we search through the entire Petition to find support for their theory that Francisco discloses the “message digest function or a hash function” recited in independent claim 25 because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Francisco’s system using a more complex hashing algorithm. If Petitioner entities desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, they should have provided citations to those portions with particularity. Moreover, the obviousness argument that Petitioner entities present with respect to dependent claim 29 appears to be setting forth an alternative ground based on proposed modifications to Francisco in view of the admitted prior art of the ’420 patent and secondary references. See Pet. 45– 47 (arguing that “Francisco meets th[e] limitation” of dependent claim 29, but further arguing that it would have been obvious to implement a more complex algorithm in Francisco because the ’420 patent “acknowledges that the MD5 hash algorithm . . . is prior art” and relying on Exhibit 1009 (Langer) and Exhibit 1010 (Browne) for teachings regarding MD5). The only statutory ground the Petition identifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) is obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. See id. at 5. The Request for Rehearing does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the MD5 algorithm to be taught or suggested by the teachings of Wyman or Francisco, as opposed to substituting the MD5 algorithm taught in alleged admitted prior art or secondary references for Francisco’s algorithm. Stated differently, the Request for Rehearing does not suggest that we should have granted institution on any grounds other than under § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. Accordingly, Petitioner entities have not persuaded us to modify the Decision Denying Institution with respect to claims 25 or 29.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - Askelladen L.L.C. v. Digital Verification Systems LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 29, 2019 · IPR2018-00745 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 1-22 because the claims recite a means-plus-function element without identifying its computer-implemented algorithm.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Decision, we determined that all claims include a means-plus- function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and that because Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure in the specification, Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim. In the Request, Petitioner asserts that we erred in determining that claims include a means-plus-function element. Req. Reh’g 1.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“hardware to execute the software fails to set forth sufficient structure, as we discussed in the Decision. Decision 10–11. But for rare exceptions not applicable here for reasons explained in the Decision, the structure for a computer-implemented function is the “algorithm” by which the software performs. Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The claims here do not specify the algorithm by which the computer” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,054,860 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Joe Andrew SalazarRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 25, 2019 · IPR2018-00273 · APJ Matthew J Mcneill · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied HTC’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on the Goldstein and Keenan ground for claims 1–7, 27–30, and 34 because the Petition did not explain how the references taught the reprogrammable limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We did not misapprehend or overlook any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition. It is Petitioner’s burden to explain how challenged claims are to be construed and how the claims read on the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)‒(5). Petitioner did not propose construing the term “reprogrammable” to include “that which can be programmed anew or differently” in the Petition. See Paper 1. Nor did Petitioner seek leave to file a reply to the construction for “reprogrammable” proposed by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. Instead, these arguments have been raised in the Request for Rehearing for the first time. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence that was not presented by Petitioner in the context of the limitation at issue. Moreover, as explained in the Decision, Petitioner failed to present any analysis or testimony in the Petition that Goldstein and Keenan teach “reprogrammable” IR codes under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioner’s newly-proposed construction, or any other interpretation of the term “reprogrammable.” Dec. 12‒16. Indeed, Petitioner failed to provide any explicit analysis for the “reprogrammable” limitation in the Petition. See id. As explained in the Decision, Petitioner’s mere citation to Goldstein’s teaching that its universal remote control device is bidirectional and can receive data for programming the device without any explanation as to how this teaching satisfies the “reprogrammable communication protocols” limitation is not sufficient to render obvious claim 1. Id. The Petition is deficient in this manner regardless of the construction of the “reprogrammable” limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Moreover, as explained in the Decision, Petitioner failed to present any analysis or testimony in the Petition that Goldstein and Keenan teach “reprogrammable” IR codes under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioner’s newly-proposed construction, or any other interpretation of the term “reprogrammable.” Dec. 12‒16. Indeed, Petitioner failed to provide any explicit analysis for the “reprogrammable” limitation in the Petition. See id. As explained in the Decision, Petitioner’s mere citation to Goldstein’s teaching that its universal remote control device is bidirectional and can receive data for programming the device without any explanation as to how this teaching satisfies the “reprogrammable communication protocols” limitation is not sufficient to render obvious claim 1. Id. The Petition is deficient in this manner regardless of the construction of the “reprogrammable” limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “said microprocessor creating a plurality of reprogrammable communication protocols for transmission to said external devices” (emphasis added). In our Decision, we noted Petitioner had not proposed an explicit definition of the term “reprogrammable,” but had maintained the term within a proposed construction for a larger claim phrase, which is consistent with construing the term according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Dec. 9. We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction, “a program that can be replaced by another” as the plain and ordinary meaning of “reprogrammable.” Id. at 9‒ 10. Petitioner contends the Board’s interpretation of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “reprogrammable” is incomplete and should include “to program anew or differently.” Req. for Reh’g 6. Petitioner argues this additional language is required for the construction to be consistent with Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in related litigation (id. at 6‒9), the ordinary meaning of the term (id. at 9‒11), and the teachings of the ’467 patent (id. at 11‒12).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“presented by Petitioner in the Petition. It is Petitioner’s burden to explain how challenged claims are to be construed and how the claims read on the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)‒(5). Petitioner did not propose construing the term “reprogrammable” to include “that which can be programmed anew or differently” in the Petition. See Paper 1. Nor did Petitioner seek leave to file a reply to the construction for “reprogrammable” proposed by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. Instead, these arguments have been raised in the Request for Rehearing for the first time. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence that was not presented by Petitioner in the context of the limitation at issue. Moreover, as explained in the Decision, Petitioner failed to present any analysis or testimony in the Petition that Goldstein and Keenan teach “reprogrammable” IR codes under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioner’s newly-proposed construction, or any other interpretation of the term “reprogrammable.” Dec. 12‒16. Indeed, Petitioner failed to provide any explicit analysis for the “reprogrammable” limitation in the Petition. See id. As explained in the Decision, Petitioner’s mere citation to Goldstein’s teaching that its universal remote control device is bidirectional and can receive data for programming the device without any explanation as to how this teaching satisfies the “reprogrammable communication protocols” limitation is not sufficient to render obvious claim 1. Id. The Petition is deficient in this manner regardless of the construction of the “reprogrammable” limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 5,802,467 - Mastercard International Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-00788 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Mastercard’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–26 because the Petition did not adequately explain how the prior art met the electronic identification reference limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, we decline to modify the Decision to institute trial on any claim. Thus, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Board concluded that the Petitioner’s evidence showed steps 1–5 and subpart (a) of step 6. (Decision pp. 32– 33). However, the Board determined that Petition did not show that the prior art taught subpart (b) of step 6, specifically “branding metadata of the encrypted digital media by writing . . . (b) the electronic identification reference into the metadata.”” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner in the Petition regarding subpart (b) of step 6 of independent claims 1 and 15, including the state of the art at the time of the claimed invention. Rather, as we indicated in the Decision, Petitioner has not adequately explained why that which Petitioner regards as the electronic identification reference written into the metadata, as recited in subpart (b) of step 6, is or comes from the login information supplied by the user, i.e., the user’s email address, that the iTunes® system had requested and received according to the prior steps of claims 1 and 15. Dec. 32–33. That is what claims 1 and 15 require, and sufficient explanation is lacking in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,402,555 - Mastercard International Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2017-00793 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claim 1, finding that the Petition did not clearly map the claimed authorization object to Muller and the Request showed no overlooked error.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“To the extent Petitioner actually regards the entirety of Muller’s “media access response” as the recited “computer readable authorization object,” and believes a limitation with regard to the “computer readable authorization object” is met if at least a part of the identified object satisfies the limitation, that position has not been clearly articulated. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board has been provided with sufficient notice of that position. We decline to make that assumption.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To the extent Petitioner actually regards the entirety of Muller’s “media access response” as the recited “computer readable authorization object,” and believes a limitation with regard to the “computer readable authorization object” is met if at least a part of the identified object satisfies the limitation, that position has not been clearly articulated. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board has been provided with sufficient notice of that position. We decline to make that assumption.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,887,308 - General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01361 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted the expanded-panel request but denied rehearing, leaving in place the discretionary denial of institution in all five follow-on petitions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. Requests for Rehearing A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing 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 arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Our intent in formulating the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into account. Thus, factor 3 is directed to Petitioner’s potential benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as our institution decisions on the first-filed petitions, prior to its filing of follow-on petitions. As discussed in our Decisions Denying Institution, we are concerned here by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in follow-on petitions. See Dec. 11. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.14 All other factors aside, this is unfair to patent 14 The Board has addressed efficiency and potential prejudice induced by multiple petitions in multiple cases. See LG Electronics, slip op. at 12 (“The Board’s resources would be more fairly expended on first petitions rather than on a followon petition like the Petition in this case.”); Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8) (“[T]he four obviousness grounds are ‘second bites at the apple,’ which use our prior decision as a roadmap to remedy Butamax’s prior, deficient challenge. owners and is an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and other post-grant review processes. Considering other factors (i.e., factors 2, 4, and 5) allows us to assess and weigh whether a petitioner should have or could have raised the new challenges earlier. We recognize that there may be circumstances where multiple petitions by the same petitioner against the same claims of a patent should be permitted, and that such a determination is dependent on the facts at issue in the case. The factors set forth above, in our view, represent a formulation of relevant considerations that permit the Board to assess the potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes review process and the fundamental fairness of the process for all parties. We recognize, also, that additional factors may arise in other cases for consideration, where appropriate. However, the factors set forth above, at the very least, serve to act as a baseline of factors to be considered in our future evaluation of follow-on petitions.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412; see also AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) (Paper 12) (“[P]arties are not permitted to request, and panels do not authorize, panel expansion.”). Our standard operating procedures, however, provide the Chief Judge with discretion to expand a panel to include more than three judges. PTAB SOP 1, 1–3 (§§ II, III) (Rev. 14); see id. at 1 (introductory language explaining that the Director has delegated to the Chief Judge the authority to designate panels under 35 U.S.C. § 6); see also In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (providing that Congress “expressly granted the Commissioner the authority to designate expanded Board panels made up of more than three Board members.”). The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party in a post-grant review. Id. at 3–4; see also Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Case IPR2014-00319, slip op. at 2 n.1 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (Paper 20) (expanded panel) (per curiam). The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 3 (§ III.A). For example, an expanded panel may be appropriate when “[t]he proceeding or AIA Review involves an issue of exceptional importance.” Id. (§ III.A.1). In these cases, the Chief Judge has considered whether expansion is warranted, and has decided to expand the panel due to the exceptional nature of the issues presented.4 As we discuss further below, follow-on petitions have been at issue in multiple cases before the Board. The Chief Judge has determined that an expanded panel is warranted to provide a discussion of factors that are considered in the exercise of the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,909,094
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.