- PTAB · Nov 22, 2019 · IPR2019-01111 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 20 and 69 because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b), finding Amazon was in privity with at least one petitioner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“(b) PATENT OWNER’S ACTION.—An 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, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c). “[T]he IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b).” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, the context of a real party in interest analysis); see also Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 4−5 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (precedential) (placing “the burden on IPR petitioners to demonstrate that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on a privy more than a year before a petition is filed”). “The Board’s decision under § 315(b) is whether to institute or not. The condition precedent for this decision is whether a time-barred party (a party that has been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than one year before the IPR was filed) is the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC, 926 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphases added). In the Federal Circuit’s view, the language of the statute makes privity and real parties in interest relationships that may arise “before institution relevant to the § 315(b) time-bar analysis.” Id. at 1315 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“More importantly, upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and evidence before us, we similarly determine that Amazon is a privy of several Petitioner Entities under the Taylor framework. See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894−95. Here, at least the second, third, and fifth categories of Taylor support our determination that these Petitioner Entities are in privity with Amazon, a time-barred party. Second Taylor Category As to the second Taylor category, the record shows a pre-existing substantive legal relationship between Amazon and several Petitioner Entities—namely, PayPal, Strava, Valassis, Upwork Global, and RetailMeNot. The evidence of record shows that the relationship between Amazon and these Petitioner Entities went beyond typical transactions between supplier and buyer because there exists a substantive legal relationship between them that is defined by legal obligations and a sufficient degree of commonality of interest.” slip op. at 20
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,802,310 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2019 · IPR2019-01093 · APJ Denise M Pothier · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for challenged claims 46, 48, 52, and 55 because Amazon was a privy of at least one petitioner and its 2011 service made the petition time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDecided for patent owner
“B. Principles of Law Section 315(b) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides: (b) PATENT OWNER’S ACTION.—An 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, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c). Petitioner entities “bear[] the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that [their] petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on an alleged [privy of Petitioner entities] more than a year earlier.” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[S]ervice of a pleading asserting a claim alleging infringement triggers the one-year time period for a petitioner to file a petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2019) (precedential); id. at 24. This one-year trigger under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) also applies to Petitioner entities’ privies or real parties in interest. See id. at 14 (“[T]he text of § 315(b) clearly and unmistakably considers only the date on which the petitioner, its privy, or a real party in interest was properly served with a complaint.”) (quoting Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in part)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“We recognize that the mere existence of an indemnity agreement might not be enough to find privity. See, e.g., WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1321. However, as is clear from the MDL record (summarized above), Amazon performed pursuant to the indemnity agreement and secured summary judgment related to infringement of the ’544 patent in favor of several of Petitioner entities. See, e.g., Ex. 2012, 3 (including the ’544 patent as part of the infringement action), 9 (listing “Category 3” infringement), 14 (“As to the effect of the indemnification agreement, it is undisputed that: . . . (2) sometime following PersonalWeb’s filing of complaints in the customer cases, Amazon agreed to indemnify its customers”), 16 (“Amazon assumed the indemnification of its customers prior to the consolidation of the MDL, and Amazon has not turned away any customer who has asked for indemnification”), 23 (finding that claim preclusion applied because, inter alia, the 2011 Amazon case involved the same parties or privies as the MDL proceeding), 26 (granting the DJ action “with respect to the Category 3 allegations involving use of . . . S3”). Thus, unlike in WesternGeco, in which the existence of an obligation to indemnify was ambiguous and undefined and, therefore, insufficient, 889 F.3d at 1321, Amazon actually assumed control of the lawsuits involving its customers, defended them, and secured relief on their behalf. We find this to be much stronger evidence of a pre-existing legal relationship than that shown in WesternGeco.” slip op. at 18
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,945,544 - Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2019-00838 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1, 13–18, 22, and 33–38 under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art had been presented to the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating whether to deny institution on the basis of § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (2) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (3) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (4) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (5) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (6) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00736 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations taught the claimed conversational protocol.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’128 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 12–13. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim. Petitioner’s evidence and argument fails to persuasively and adequately explain how the speech acts or performatives as described in Nodine are the events recited in the challenged claims. Although both Finin and Bayardo define and disclose performatives (Ex. 1016, 297; Ex. 1017, 197), Petitioner does not discuss these disclosures or explain sufficiently how the speech acts/performatives in Nodine, Finin, and Bayardo alone or combination teach the “layer of conversational protocol defined by event types and parameter lists associated with one or more events, and wherein the parameter lists further refine the one or more events” limitation of claim 22 and 45. Petitioner asserts that “Nodine in combination with Steiner and Finin discloses or suggests this limitation” of claim 45 (Pet. 49), but Petitioner does not identify adequately any reliance on Steiner for this limitation (id. at 28–33, 49). slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“in the art at the time of the invention of the ’128 patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and one to two years of work experience in networked computer systems or a related area. Ex. 1002 ¶ 14; Pet. 4. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Olsen’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not propose a construction for any claim term. Petitioner avers that no express constructions are required. Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s failure to set forth its construction of any term is reason to deny the Petition, and Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any term. Prelim. Resp. 6. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00735 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations rendered claim 1 and its dependent claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim. slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because (1) it relies on similar art that applicant overcame during prosecution of the parent ’115 patent, and (2) it is duplicative of the co-pending petition in IPR2019-00733. Prelim. Resp. 48– 61. Because, for reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition on other grounds, we need not determine whether it also would be appropriate to deny the Petition pursuant to our discretion under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not propose a construction for any claim term. Petitioner avers that no express constructions are required. Pet. 14. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s failure to set forth its construction of any term is reason to deny the Petition, and Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any term. Prelim. Resp. 6. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Pet. 25. Petitioner’s arguments offer conclusory statements that equate Nodine’s speech act/performative types to “event types” recited in the challenged claims, and the parameters associated with Nodine’s speech act/performatives with “one or more of the events” recited in the challenged claims. See id. Petitioner argues that Nodine thus discloses the conversational protocols defined by events. Id.; see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106–107. In sum, Petitioner maps Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” to the “events” recited in claim 1. We note that Petitioner does not offer a construction for “event” or “event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Flectere LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2019 · IPR2019-00479 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution because it had not overlooked or misapprehended petition arguments or evidence.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“the Board reviews a decision 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 Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended 2 or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“disclosure in Tondevold of [such a feature].” Dec. 13–14 (“[W]e do not find in the portions of Tondevold cited by Petitioner a description of host computer 40 disseminating new or updated forms to nodes 42.”). Even in the Request, Petitioner does not state with particularity which specific disclosure in Tondevold explicitly discloses sending a data-entry form with verification logic through a computer network to a remote computer. See Request 12–14. To the extent that Petitioner relies on Tondevold’s disclosure of “allowing forms to be created and sent to and from a number of locations” (Request 13; Ex. 1003, 6:41–44 (emphasis altered)), such reliance is misplaced. Indeed, Petitioner proffers that sentence fragment out of context—in context and in the same paragraph, the “forms” being sent “to and from” locations are not actually data-entry forms with verification logic, but merely files of raw data corresponding to the blank fields in forms. See Ex. 1003, 6:37–61 (“[O]nly the data file of raw data corresponding to the blank fields in a form . . . must be sent between any node 42 and the host computer 40 to pass a form.”). Second, Ground 1 in the Petition relies on anticipation by Tondevold. To serve as an anticipatory reference, “the reference must disclose each and every element of the claimed invention, whether it does so explicitly or inherently.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference . . . . Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given 9 set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotations omitted). In the Petition, Petitioner did not argue that Tondevold inherently discloses sending a dataentry form with verification logic through a computer network to a remote computer. See Pet. 36–40. In the Request, Petitioner now argues that in Tondevold “the form and form definitions must be sent to the node in the first place” (Request 14 (emphasis added)), but even here Petitioner stops short of arguing that Tondevold necessarily discloses sending a data-entry form with verification logic through a computer network to a remote computer. Indeed, Tondevold could send data-entry forms with verification logic from the host to remote computers by more than one means, such as, for example, by distributing portable storage devices for manual upload or through a computer network. As stated in the Decision, the Board did not find in the portions of Tondevold cited in the Petition (or Request) an explicit description of how Tondevold’s host computer 40 disseminates new or updated forms to nodes 42 (Dec. 14), and Petitioner has neither argued nor shown such a feature to be inherent in Tondevold.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“paragraphs that the invention of claim 1 would have been obvious because it combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See Request 5–8. We disagree. In the Petition, as the above paragraphs reveal, Petitioner did not argue with particularity, for example, that the alleged combination of familiar elements does no more than yield “predictable results.” We are not persuaded that Petitioner’s generic use of the phrase “strong suggestion” invoked this argument. Petitioner also argues that its expert presented evidence of predictable results. Request 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 163–164). Nevertheless, Petitioner did not make this argument in the Petition and, instead, cited large portions of their expert’s declaration without specificity. Pet. 71 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–166). See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). Second, Petitioner contends it argued in the above Petition paragraphs that the invention of claim 1 would have been obvious because it applied a known technique (Whitmyer) to a known device ready for improvement (Sheffield) to yield predictable results. See Request 8–10. We disagree. In the Petition, as the above paragraphs reveal, Petitioner did not argue with particularity, for example, that application of the alleged known technique does no more than yield “predictable results.” Petitioner again appears to be arguing that we failed to consider arguments made in the” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,415,284 - Triple Plus Ltd. v. Mordechai Ben OldAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 16, 2019 · PGR2018-00038 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the Triple+ NWL, including the obvious substitution of a butterfly valve for its ball valve.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claim, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued” slip op. at 2
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“subject declaration was filed as Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response states: “Patent Owner, Mordechai Ben Old, hereby submits the following preliminary response in the form of declaration.” Paper 7, 2. To the extent Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response/declaration would be given any weight post-institution, we agree with Petitioner that it would be considered routine discovery and that Patent Owner was required to make himself available for deposition. See Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761 (“Routine discovery includes: . . . (2) the cross-examination of the other side[’]s declarants . . . .”). Patent Owner did not do so. Additionally, the record reflects that Patent Owner has continued to fail to participate in this proceeding. In particular, Patent Owner did not respond to our Order specifying “that Patent Owner shall appear . . . on or before May 30, 2019, and show cause as to why adverse judgment should not be issued against Patent Owner for abandonment of the contest pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” Paper 14, 3. Accordingly, in light of Patent Owner’s failure to participate in the proceeding by appearing for a deposition by Petitioner or otherwise, we agree that the appropriate remedy is to exclude Patent Owner’s declaration, submitted as its Preliminary Response (Paper 7). Thus, to the extent we would have considered Patent Owner’s declaration at this post-institution stage of the proceeding, we decline to do so.3” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had: “a Bachelor of Science degree in a field of engineering or a closely related discipline, and at least one year of practical academic or industrial experience designing, testing and/or manufacturing fluid control valves.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30). As discussed above, Patent Owner did not file a Response. We reiterate our preliminary finding from the Decision on Institution, that, consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner based on the present record. See Dec. on Inst. 10; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“one exception that the Triple+ NWL includes a ball valve whereas claim 1 requires a butterfly. See id. at 32–63; see also id. at 31 (“the Triple+ NWL discloses every element of claim 1 except for the choice of quarter turn rotary valve type,” i.e., the claimed butterfly valve). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he ball valve is interchangeable with the claimed ‘butterfly,’ and it would have been obvious to [a person of ordinary skill in the art] to substitute one for the other.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40, 56–57). Petitioner relies upon Dr. Johnson’s testimony in support of this position. See, e.g., id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). In particular, Petitioner states: a ball valve (like in the Triple+ NWL) is a member of the same family of valves as the butterfly. Except for the shape of the valve member, both are functionally and operationally identical, and both can and were used as shut-off valves for main water lines entering a residence or other structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he Triple+ NWL used a ball valve and was intended for use as a shut-off valve on the main water line.” Id. at 37. Petitioner thus contends that: (1) this use for any quarter turn rotary valve type was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–40); (2) “replacing a ball valve with a butterfly valve was a ‘simple design choice and an obvious replacement’” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56– 57); and (3) “[s]ubstituting one known type of a valve for another— particularly within the same family of valves such as the quarter turn rotary valve family—is the epitome of an obvious design choice” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 38 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 421).7” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,031 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,031 - PTAB · Jun 19, 2019 · IPR2018-01159 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied West’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In a request for rehearing, we do not review the merits of the Institution Decision de novo. Instead, we consider whether Petitioner has met its burden of showing that a matter has been misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”). We conclude that Petitioner has not met this burden in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Initially, we remind Petitioner that we did not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Carrel in view of David-Hegerich. See Dec. on Inst. 17–22. Rather, we found that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Carrel as proposed by Petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Initially, we remind Petitioner that we did not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Carrel in view of David-Hegerich. See Dec. on Inst. 17–22. Rather, we found that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Carrel as proposed by Petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,586,011 - Amazon.Com, Inc. v. M2m Solutions LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01893 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, maintaining its claim construction and its finding that Kloba and Multer render claims 1–30 obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The burden of showing that the FWD should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the FWD. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As explained above, the Final Written Decision concluded that the ordinary meaning of the claim language is broad enough to encompass the sending of communications, based upon the results of processing consumer usage information, containing management instructions. FWD 25. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why that conclusion was incorrect. We maintain that conclusion here. In claim 1, for example, it is reasonable to read the phrase “based upon the results of having processed at least some of the received consumer usage information” as modifying either “configured to send communications” or “management instructions that cause the stored data content files of one or more assets to be automatically modified.” Id. at 24. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why such language could only modify management instructions.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“In any case, we addressed these limitations under the construction we adopted in the Final Written Decision, which is close to Patent Owner’s new construction, and found them taught by Kloba. FWD 51–55. Specifically, we found that Kloba’s figures 1I1 and 1X, and the corresponding description, showed that all instructions and objects, including the deltas (differences between objects currently in a client’s database and objects offered by content providers), are transmitted from the server to the client in one transmission during a synchronization, and that this transmission is based, in part, upon the results of processing the information collected through the interfaces of Figures 12 and 17. Id. at 52–54 (citing Ex. 1015, 8:7–19, 19:47, 19:51–25, 20:50–56; Pet. 33–34; Reply 8–9). We rejected Patent Owner’s argument that deltas were communicated separately from other synchronization information. Id.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,577,359 - Amazon.Com, Inc. v. M2m Solutions LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01892 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no error in its claim construction and concluding that Kloba and Multer render claims 1–30 obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The burden of showing that the FWD should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the FWD. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In any case, we agree with Petitioner that the language of the claims is clear. As we stated in the Final Written Decision, according to the plain language of claims 1 and 20, it is the communication of management instructions, not the management instructions themselves, that is based upon the results of processing at least some of the received consumer usage information. FWD 17–18. We maintain that conclusion here. The natural reading of the claim language (claim 1, for example) is that “managing” is “based upon the results of having processed at least some of the received consumer usage information” and that the managing is, in turn, accomplished “by sending communications containing management instructions that cause the stored data content files of one or more assets to be automatically modified.” It is the managing, and thus the sending of communications containing management instructions, that is based on the results of having processed consumer usage information, not the management instructions themselves. To the extent Patent Owner still argues that the management instructions themselves must be based on the results of having processed consumer usage information in order to accomplish the recited management, that is not recited in the claims. Rather, the only limitation placed on the “management instructions” by the plain language of the claims is that they “cause the stored data content files of one or more assets to be automatically modified.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Ex. 1015, 20:11–21. We found that this teaches communicating management instructions “based upon the results of processing at least some of the received consumer usage information,” as recited in claim 1. FWD 53 (“The server communicates its single set of instructions to the client as a result of processing all of the information it receives in the single-up transmission from the client. This includes deltas, requests for new channels, and changes to preferences.”); see also Ex. 1015, 8:7–19. This finding applies equally under Patent Owner’s new proposed construction, namely, “the server’s determination to communicate the claimed management instruction(s) in particular as part of a transmission sent to at least one consumer device asset is what needs to be ‘based upon the results of processing at least some of the received consumer usage information.’” PO CC Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, the decision to communicate synchronization information (including deltas and new channels) from the server to the client is based, in part, on the server’s synchronization of the client’s channel information (including deltas and new channels) with the providers of the channels, which involves processing the requests for new channels and changes to preferences. Ex. 1015, 8:7–19, 20:1–21. Thus, Kloba and Multer (US 6,671,757 B1, Ex. 1016) render claims 1 and 20 obvious even under Patent Owner’s new proposed construction.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,577,358
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.