- PTAB · Nov 20, 2020 · IPR2020-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended arguments and no abuse of discretion in instituting review.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burden of showing that the Institution Decision should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“not be persuasive. We do not view the circumstances to have changed materially. The record still is unclear as to whether the Texas court has set a trial date. Staff at the Texas court has indicated that Patent Owner “may use 7/12/2021 as the scheduled trial date” for a group of trials that will include Petitioners (Ex. 2018, 1), but the record does not indicate that the Texas court has issued any orders to that effect. final decision to assess the weight to be accorded a trial date set earlier than the expected final written decision date. This proximity inquiry is a proxy for the likelihood that the trial court will reach a decision on validity issues before the Board reaches a final written decision. A trial set to occur soon after the institution decision is fairly likely to happen prior to the Board’s final decision, even if the trial date were postponed due to intervening circumstances. Here, however, a July 12, 2021, trial date would be approximately three months before our final written decision is due. Even considering the allegedly changed circumstances raised by Patent Owner, there is at least some persuasive evidence that delays are possible. In these circumstances, the efficiency and system integrity concerns that animate the Fintiv analysis are not as strong—all other things being equal. Accordingly, even if we were to consider Patent Owner’s new arguments, this factor still would be, at best, neutral to whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. For the same reasons, our analysis of Fintiv factor 5 also would remain unchanged.” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,076,431 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2020 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place because it found no overlooked matter or abuse of discretion in its Fintiv analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burden of showing that the Institution Decision should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Fintiv factor 2 looks at the proximity of the trial date to the date of our final decision to assess the weight to be accorded a trial date set earlier than the expected final written decision date. This proximity inquiry is a proxy for the likelihood that the trial court will reach a decision on validity issues before the Board reaches a final written decision. A trial set to occur soon after the institution decision is fairly likely to happen prior to the Board’s circumstances. Here, however, a July 12, 2021, trial date would be approximately three months before our final written decision is due. Even considering the allegedly changed circumstances raised by Patent Owner, there is at least some persuasive evidence that delays are possible. In these circumstances, the efficiency and system integrity concerns that animate the Fintiv analysis are not as strong—all other things being equal. Accordingly, even if we were to consider Patent Owner’s new arguments, this factor still would be, at best, neutral to whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. For the same reasons, our analysis of Fintiv factor 5 also would remain unchanged.” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,451,084 - Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 18, 2020 · IPR2020-00687 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no misapprehension or abuse of discretion in instituting review despite the asserted changes in the Texas case.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burden of showing that the Institution Decision should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“The circumstances have not changed materially in the Texas court. Although a motion to stay has been filed, the Texas court has not ruled on it. Accordingly, Patent Owner still asks us to speculate as to how the Texas court might rule. We decline to speculate, and instead determine that this factor remains neutral. See Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 7; Fintiv II, Paper 15 at 12.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner did not make this argument in its Preliminary Response or Sur-reply; thus, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked it. For that reason alone, Patent Owner’s new argument is improper and insufficient. Nevertheless, even if we were to consider the argument, it would not be persuasive.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,451,084 - Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 18, 2020 · IPR2020-00686 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no misapprehension, overlooked argument, or abuse of discretion in instituting review.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burden of showing that the Institution Decision should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Although a motion to stay has been filed, the Texas court has not ruled on it. Accordingly, Patent Owner still asks us to speculate as to how the Texas court might rule. We decline to speculate, and instead determine that this factor remains neutral. See Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 7; Fintiv II, Paper 15 at 12.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,076,431 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 29, 2020 · IPR2020-00867 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Luna, Silva, and VCEG-M51r1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’035 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Luna and Silva are conclusory and contrary to the teachings of the references. Petitioner points to Silva’s statements that its techniques improve efficiency and will lead to shorter zero-runs and earlier EOB codes. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1005, 386). But Petitioner ignores the context in which Silva describes achieving these benefits, namely an atypical situation from low energy to high energy, rather than the more typical high energy to low energy. Ex. 1005, 384–85. Dr. Karam’s testimony largely repeats the arguments in the Petition and also fails to account sufficiently for these teachings of Silva. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–96. Thus, this testimony lacks credibility and is entitled to little weight. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a skilled artisan would have had a reason, with rational underpinning, to combine Luna and Silva.6” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“combine Luna and Silva are conclusory and contrary to the teachings of the references. Petitioner points to Silva’s statements that its techniques improve efficiency and will lead to shorter zero-runs and earlier EOB codes. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1005, 386). But Petitioner ignores the context in which Silva describes achieving these benefits, namely an atypical situation from low energy to high energy, rather than the more typical high energy to low energy. Ex. 1005, 384–85. Dr. Karam’s testimony largely repeats the arguments in the Petition and also fails to account sufficiently for these teachings of Silva. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–96. Thus, this testimony lacks credibility and is entitled to little weight. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a skilled artisan would have had a reason, with rational underpinning, to combine Luna and Silva.6” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,305,035 - U.D. Electronic Corp. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2019-00511 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–16 are unpatentable; the motion to amend is denied for substitute claims 17, 20, and 21 as indefinite and granted for claims 18, 19, 22, and 23.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in of the ’302 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering, with two or more years of experience designing connectors with EMI shielding. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art is largely the same, urging a similar amount of education and experience, detailing “at least one year of experience with electrical connectors having internal electronic components, or at least two years’ experience with designing electrical connectors having internal electronic components.” Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 27). We determined previously that the proffered definitions were largely the same and we determined them to be appropriate for the technology addressed by this proceeding. Inst. Dec. 7. Patent Owner subsequently agreed that “there are not meaningful differences between the parties’ definitions of a POSITA for purposes of this proceeding.” PO Resp. 9–10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“After review of the proffered arguments, we remain persuaded that Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the ’302 Patent. Patent Owner cites to multiple cases regarding the use of embodiments of the invention set forth in the specification to interpret limitations, despite claim language that could be interpreted more broadly. PO Resp. 16–18; PO Sur-reply 8–10 (citing Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301–02 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo–Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1550–51 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We determine that the portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner are not express or implied definitions of the term “effectively curved portion.” See Phillips at 1321 (the specification “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication”). Patent Owner continues that “the only embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent have the substrates positioned substantially orthogonal and substantially vertical to the face of the housing,” and “the run of the conductors must make an approximately 90° change in direction to provide an electrical interconnection.” Id. at 18. Such arguments and case law would be pertinent if we interpreted claim 1, for example, as requiring substrates to not be orthogonal or if we required the “effectively curved portion” to not result in a 90° change in direction. We do not interpret claim 1 that way, so Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. disclosure into a claim that does not recite such requirements. It is improper to add a limitation appearing in the specification and the drawings, but not appearing in the unambiguous language of a claim. See Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This is particularly true where the specification does not define the term at issue to include that additional limitation or otherwise include language requiring it. Claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16 recite, in part, that the first conductors include an “effectively curved portion,” and each claim recites that limitation unambiguously. Although we acknowledge the varying embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent, we are persuaded that confining the “effectively curved portion” to be “approximately 90º” is overly narrow. We continue to determine that adopting Patent Owner’s construction would unduly limit the cited claims, i.e., claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16, by importing limitations that are not part of the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, we continue to determine that “effectively curved portion” should be construed as any form of bend of the first conductors.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“unpersuasive because the unfiltered connector of Hughes does not disclose an internal board, and that any combination of Kan with Hughes would result, at most, in the “second conductors,” but not the “first conductors,” being bent so that the internal conductors mate with the internal substrate. PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 124, 128). Patent Owner additionally asserts that the reorientation envisioned by the combination would add to material costs, reduce performance due to longer conductor runs, necessitate additional alterations, and provide no space savings or advantage. Id. at 43– 44 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 122, 129). Petitioner responds that the rationale for combining Kan and Hughes merely involves a design choice, and would apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results in an improved system. Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–421). We agree with Petitioner. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Any modification of a prior art device will result in changes thereto, as a matter of course; the question, rather, is whether there existed sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill to make the proposed modifications in light of the evidence of record. We find that Petitioner’s evidence of the benefits resulting from the combination, i.e., saving space for the connector assembly and reorienting the plug-receiving opening for insertion of a connector plug in accordance with the desired implementation based on where the housing is mounted, provide sufficient motivation to make these changes, and that Patent Owner’s arguments about the materials costs and possible reduced performance are insufficient to defeat the evidence of motivation to combine.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Kan is the product of impermissible hindsight, and the combination would change the basic principles of operation of the connectors for which they were designed. PO Resp. 45–47. Patent Owner argues that “Hughes was designed to operate by mounting to an external circuit board, and Kan was designed to operate by engaging a circuit board inside of the housing,” and their combination would render Kan unfit for its intended purpose of supporting a compact size. Id. at 46–47. We do not agree. Mr. Baxter has acknowledged that Hughes and Kan are analogous technologies directed to the common problem in the art of incorporating a circuit board with a connector so that it may offer additional functions. See Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 145– 148. We disagree that the combination of Kan and Hughes would change combination of Kan and Hughes would not be the same as the individual connectors, and we are not persuaded that the size of Kan would need to be increased such that it would be unfit for its intended purposes. As such, we do not determine Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 6,773,302 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 6,773,302 - Universal Imaging Industries, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 4, 2020 · IPR2019-01383 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 1–22, finding no reasonable likelihood on four grounds and denying the Adkins ground under § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“testimony because we mistakenly found it to rely on unsupported inherency theories. Req. Reh’g 9–10. According to Petitioner, “Dr. Direen’s Declaration does not rely on any inherency theories.” Id. As pointed out in the Decision, however, Dr. Direen, in multiple instances, clearly bases his testimony on alleged “inherent device operation,” rather than express disclosure in Adkins. See Dec. 20; Ex. 1002, App. 1002-C, 8–18, 23, 26–27, 32, 36. We did not misapprehend his testimony. We maintain our conclusions that Petitioner did not show Examiner error and that Dr. Direen’s testimony did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments presented during prosecution. See Dec. 19–20. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding factors (e) and (f). Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in weighing the Becton, Dickinson factors and denying institution as to the asserted ground based on Adkins under § 325(d). Our evaluation of the Becton, Dickinson factors in the Decision demonstrates that our denial of institution of this ground was warranted under the two-part framework of Advanced Bionics, which was recently designated precedential, because the same art (Adkins) previously was presented to the Office and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”).1 With respect to the first issue, previously “presented” art includes, among other things, “art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.” Id. at 7–8. With respect to the second issue, institution generally will be denied if a “petitioner fails to make a showing of material error,” and “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. ANALYSIS Petitioner asserted five grounds of unpatentability in its Petition. See Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 3; Dec. 7. In the Decision, we determined that Petitioner had not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to four of those grounds. Dec. 21–41. As to the fifth asserted ground—alleged obviousness of claims 1–22 of the ’079 patent over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0306431 A1 (Ex. 1006, “Adkins”)—we found that the evidence weighed in favor of exercising our discretion and denying institution of review as to the ground under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Dec. 21, 41. Petitioner in its Request for Rehearing does not dispute our determination as to the four asserted grounds for which we found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing, and instead only disputes our conclusion as to the ground based on Adkins. Req. Reh’g 1 & n.1.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“overlooked its argument in the Petition regarding claim 1 that the slave device “implements [the] address change functionality upon instruction from the master, no matter how many times the master sends the instruction. With each address change request, the slave will change its address.” Id. at 9 (quoting Pet. 43; citing Ex. 1002, App. 1002-C, 7 (similar testimony from Petitioner’s declarant, Harry Direen, Ph.D., P.E.)). Petitioner, however, does not explain why we should have understood that vague statement to be the detailed arguments it now makes in the Request for Rehearing. Even if the vague statement was sufficient for claim 1, Petitioner states that “[t]he same argument was presented in connection with each of the challenged claims,” but fails to explain how it would apply to claims that further specify the timing and nature of interaction with the master, such as the “substantially immediately following a predetermined event” and “continual series of a plurality of address change requests” limitations in independent claim 7 (which are recited similarly in independent claims 12 and 17). See id. Indeed, Petitioner in its Petition cited only a single paragraph of Adkins as identify in the Petition any “predetermined event” in Adkins. Dec. 19–20. As to Dr. Direen’s similar testimony, we found that it was “entitled to little weight because it consists primarily of quotations from Adkins, many of which are not cited in the Petition.” Id. at 20 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3), 42.65(a)). We see no reason to conclude otherwise now.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,850,079 - Universal Imaging Industries, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 4, 2020 · IPR2019-01387 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for the Adkins-based ground under § 325(d), finding no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“testimony because we mistakenly found it to rely on unsupported inherency theories. Req. 9. According to Petitioner, “Dr. Direen’s Declaration does not rely on any inherency theories.” Id. As pointed out in the Decision (at 18–19), Dr. Direen, in multiple instances, clearly bases his testimony on “inherent device operation,” rather than express disclosure in Adkins. Ex. 1002-C, at C5, C8, C11–C12, C17, C20, C23–C24, C29, C34–C35. We did not misapprehend his testimony. We maintain our conclusions (Dec. 18–19) that Petitioner did not show Examiner error and that Dr. Direen’s testimony did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments presented during prosecution. Thus, we did not abuse our discretion in finding that Becton, Dickinson factors (e) and (f) weighed in favor of denial. Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in weighing the Becton, Dickinson factors and denying institution as to the asserted ground based on Adkins under § 325(d). Our evaluation of the Becton, Dickinson factors in the Decision demonstrates that our denial of institution of this ground was warranted under the two-part framework of Advanced Bionics, which was recently designated precedential, because the same art” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In the Decision we explained that Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (b) weighed in favor of exercise of our discretion under § 325(d) because the identical art (the patent and underlying patent application pertaining to Adkins) was presented to the Examiner during prosecution. Dec. 15. This is consistent with Advanced Bionics, which has confirmed that “[p]reviously to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.” Advanced Bionics, slip op. at 7–8. Thus, we did not abuse our discretion in finding that factors (a) and (b) weighed in favor of denial as to the asserted ground based on Adkins.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Req. 8 (quoting Ex. 1002-C, at C4–C5 (emphasis in original)).2 Petitioner did not cite to this testimony with particularity in the Petition. See Pet. 47; see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(4), (5). Rather, Petitioner simply cited to the 2 This testimony would not have been helpful to Petitioner. Rather, it was presented as part of Dr. Direen’s opinion that the master’s behavior recited in claim 1 would have been inherent in Adkins. Ex. 1002-C, at C4–C5. Dr. Direen did not testify that claim 1 does not require a finding as to the master’s behavior, so long as Adkins’ slave device was capable of responding appropriately. We considered Dr. Direen’s inherency opinion and decided that it was unsupported and, thus, did not support a finding of Examiner error. Dec. 18–19. without providing any specificity. Id. Thus, we could not have overlooked the testimony on which Petitioner now seeks to rely. In any case, as a general matter, we found that “Dr. Direen’s testimony is entitled to little weight because it consists primarily of quotations from Adkins, many of which are not cited in the Petition.” Dec. 18–19 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3), 42.65(a)). Thus, we did consider Dr. Direen’s testimony, but found it of little value. Petitioner also argues that we improperly discounted Dr. Direen’s testimony because we mistakenly found it to rely on unsupported inherency theories. Req. 9. According to Petitioner, “Dr. Direen’s Declaration does not rely on any inherency theories.” Id. As pointed out in the Decision (at 18–19), Dr. Direen, in multiple instances, clearly bases his testimony on “inherent device operation,” rather than express disclosure in Adkins. Ex. 1002-C, at C5, C8, C11–C12, C17, C20, C23–C24, C29, C34–C35. We did not misapprehend his testimony. We maintain our conclusions (Dec. 18–19) that Petitioner did not show Examiner error and that Dr. Direen’s testimony did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments presented during prosecution. Thus, we did not abuse our discretion in finding that Becton, Dickinson factors (e) and (f) weighed in favor of denial.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,176,921 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 1, 2020 · IPR2020-00046 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–5 and 9 because the Petition failed to identify required corresponding structure and did not explain how the prior art applied under its asserted construction.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Thus, if we were to proceed now on allegedly incorrect “assumed” constructions (i.e., corresponding structure is a microprocessor executing software that performs the functions), but ultimately agree with Petitioner’s proposed constructions (i.e., corresponding structure requires special programming or an algorithm for performing the function), we would be put in the position of attempting to apply prior art to claims that might not be amenable to construction, and without Petitioner telling us how the art should be applied in that circumstance. In such an event, “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on the merits with respect to whether petitioner had established the unpatentability of those claims under sections 102 or 103.” Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). We exercise our discretion and decline Petitioner’s invitation to adopt allegedly incorrect claim constructions and institute an inter partes review on the basis of those constructions.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenDenied
“Although Petitioner asserts that aside from the “transceiver means for . . .” and “antenna means for . . . ,” the corresponding structure for each of the claimed means-plus-function limitations requires special programming (see Pet. 8), Petitioner does not direct us to disclosure of special programming or an algorithm in the ’522 Patent Specification (see Pet. 10). Therefore, with respect to at least the “ranking means for determining a rank representative of the station’s suitability for acting as master in the network using performance characteristics of the antenna means in view of its local environment,” recited in independent claims 1 and 3 and all other challenged claims, which depend therefrom, the Petition fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“Petitioner asserts that there are several means-plus-function limitations recited in the challenged claims, specifically “transceiver means for . . . ,” “antenna means for . . . ,” “control means for . . . ,” “ranking means . . . ,” comparison means . . . ,” “master transfer means . . . ,” and “inquiry means . . .”. See Pet. 8–11. The use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 64 applies. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Accordingly, we presume that each of the aforementioned means-plus-function limitations recited in claims 1–5 and 9 should be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,980,522 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01111 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of the petition as time-barred under § 315(b), because Amazon was a privy of several Petitioner Entities.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Here, Requesters simply disagree with the way in which we resolved the disputed privity issue in our Decision. Mere disagreement with our Decision is not proper basis for rehearing when we had considered and addressed Petitioner Entities’ arguments in the Decision itself. Requesters do not show that we misapprehended or overlooked an argument that they made in the Petition or Reply. Moreover, Requesters have not identified persuasively in the Request an erroneous interpretation of the law or factual findings not supported by substantial evidence such that the Decision should be modified.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we explained that the District Court’s ruling is on appeal, and Amazon has intervened in the appeal to continue its defense of Petitioner Entities’ interests in Amazon’s products. Id. at 29−30; Ex. 2017 (Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief); Ex. 2018 (Amazon’s Motion to Intervene). Thus, we concluded that the circumstances present here, which include the above-noted preexisting legal relationship between Amazon and some of the Petitioner Entities, have not changed and that Amazon and Petitioner Entities remain in privity. Dec. 23−24, 27−30, 35.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“concerns by evaluating whether one or more of the Taylor’s categories apply. Dec. 18−36. We separately and expressly analyzed three grounds— namely, Taylor’s second, third, and fifth categories identified above. Id. For example, the third Taylor category, addressing due process concerns, is whether a party not involved in a lawsuit nevertheless was represented adequately by someone with the same interests who was a party to the lawsuit. See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894; WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319. We determined that Amazon is a privy of several Petitioner Entities under this ground, as well as two additional grounds. Dec. 18−36.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,802,310
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.