• Panduit Corp. v. Corning Optical Communications LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00528 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 14-40, 46-53, and 55-62 because the cited art did not show the claimed adapter number, spacing, or density.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Inter Partes Review1 (Paper 7, “Decision” or “Dec.”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,712,206 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’206 patent”). Paper 10 (“Req. Reh’g”), 1. When rehearing a decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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). The burden of showing that our Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the decision. 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “teach or suggest a row of six side-by-side adapters which served as the basis for Petitioner’s contention that the numerical limitations of the independent claims of the ’206 patent were taught or suggested. Dec. 21 (“Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any teaching or suggestion in Rapp (or other cited art) of using ‘a row of six side-by-side adapters using standardized LC adapters’ or ‘12 fiber optic adapters over 78.0 mm’ as argued by Petitioner.”). See also Dec. 24, 26. In the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner does not point to any related teaching or suggestion in the cited art that we misapprehended or overlooked. To the contrary, Petitioner argues: “[t]he Board overlooked or misapprehended the full scope of the teachings of Rapp, instead focusing on its exemplary embodiment showing nine adapters or blanks.” Req. Reh’g. 3. Most significantly, in the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner fails to direct our attention to any teaching or suggestion in the cited art of a row of six side-by-side adapters which the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,712,206

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.