- Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request; the Board found no abuse of discretion in instituting IPR of claims 1, 24, and 25 on the stated § 103 grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2022). In a rehearing request, the party challenging the decision “must specifically identify” (1) “all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) “the place where each matter was previously addressed” in an earlier submission. Id.; see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 90.3 “A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision.” MicroSurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., PGR2021-00026, Paper 14 at 2 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021). “Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not explain why issue preclusion permits the Board to hold the district court’s finding that Cisco “copied software functionality from the [infringed] patents” against Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15. Issue preclusion “is appropriate only if”: (1) “the issue is identical to one decided in the first action”; (2) “the issue was actually litigated in the first action”; (3) “resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action”; and (4) the party defending against preclusion “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Patent Owner does not address any of these requirements for issue preclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Regarding the policy’s whitelist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the whitelisted destination domain, the security device filters the packet by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain. See Ex. 1004, 7:52–59, 16:36–42; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90; see also Ex. 1004, 6:1–11. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a whitelisted destination domain) to the packet. Hence, we disagree with Patent Owner that Buruganahalli’s security devices process whitelisted packets by “forward[ing] the entire encrypted stream without . . . filtering encrypted packets.” See Req. Reh’g 10. We also disagree with Patent Owner that “encrypted packets in whitelisted sessions” are (1) “forwarded without applying any packet-filtering rules” and (2) “allowed uninspected.” See id. at 11 n.1, 13. Regarding the policy’s blacklist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the blacklisted destination domain, the security device either blocks the packet (as Patent Owner contends) or filters the packet by forwarding it to a decryption engine. See Ex. 1004, 7:60–67, 9:61–67, 14:33–36, 16:43–48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91, 94, 97, 108, 118, 127, 137; Req. Reh’g 10–11, 13. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113, 135. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a blacklisted destination domain) to the packet and corresponds to limitation [1.g] and the similar limitations in claims 24 and 25. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 134–135. The Institution Decision explained how Buruganahalli’s security devices may filter packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data according to claims 1, 24, and 25 by applying a whitelist/blacklist policy to the packets. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 57–60, 66–67, 69–71. As the Institution Decision explained and as discussed above, “for each session packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data are correlated and filtered based on the hostname (destination domain) extracted from the handshake traffic, and then the correlated and filtered packets are processed separately from packets destined for other domains.” See Inst. Dec. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 120–121, 133–135; Ex. 1004, 7:39–67, 8:55–60, 11:47–51, 14:21–33, 14:50–55, 16:32–48. Buruganahalli discloses additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine, e.g., as occurs in Buruganahalli’s Figure 3B embodiment. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:17–22, 9:67–10:4, 12:4–64, Fig. 3B. But claims 1, 24, and 25 use the transitional term “comprising.” Ex. 1001, 25:14, 28:59, 29:29–30. Hence, the claims do not “exclude unrecited elements,” such as additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V., 864 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - PTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01024 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place after finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter concerning claim construction or the prior-art obviousness showing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. 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 burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . 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. For the reason discussed below, Patent Owner’s Request for” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“preambles of claims 1, 5, and 22 are not like the preamble in the claim in Bio-Rad. Here, unlike Bio-Rad, the preamble recitation of “for use” in the preamble term “for use in a public transportation facility” expresses an intended use. See Opp. 8. Further, in Bio-Rad, the preamble recited a “method for conducting a reaction in plugs in a microfluidic system,” where the terms “a reaction” and “a microfluidic system” were recited in the body of the claim, and were intertwined with other preamble terms such as “conducting.” Bio-Rad, 967 F.3d at 1371. Here, the body of each independent claim does not recite “public transportation facility.” See Opp. 7. Further, the claim term “high voltage power source” is not intertwined with the claim term “for use in a public transportation facility,” because the “high voltage power source” is structurally complete by itself. Here, as in Catalina, “deletion of the disputed phrase [“for use in a public transportation facility”] from the preamble of Claim 1 does not affect the structural definition or operation of the [claimed apparatus] itself.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 810; accord Opp. 8. In particular, the location or supply of the high voltage power source does not affect the structural definition or operation of the claimed “first power input adapted to be connected to the first standard high voltage power source,” nor any other limitation recited in the body of the claim of the LED light fixture itself. Also here, as in Catalina, “the specification, in its entirety, does not make the location of the [high voltage power source] an additional structure for the claimed [high voltage power source].” Id.; see Decision at 9–11; accord Opp. 3–4. Patent Owner does not show that the Decision overlooked or misapprehended Catalina or Bio-Rad. We deny rehearing on this basis.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are inconsistent with the claims and the Specification. The claims do not separately recite “a high voltage power source” and “a voltage of 450 to 1000 Volts.” Rather, claim 1 recites “a high voltage power source having a voltage of 450 to 1000 Volts.” The Specification discloses that the high voltage power “source 34 can be 450- 1000V direct current.” Ex. 1002, 5:39–40. In reciting “a high voltage power source having a voltage of 450 to 1000 Volts,” claim 1 expressly limits the “high voltage power source” to the disclosed embodiment of a “source [that] can be 450-1000V direct current,” and excludes other embodiments of power sources having a voltage outside of this range. Further, the Specification discloses that the “source,” not the third rail, “can be 450-1000V,” without describing a specific structure that provides the voltage. Ex. 1002, 5:39–40. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the Specification itself describes the high voltage power source in terms of what source can be. Id. Thus, the Decision’s construction of this term is consistent with its usage in the context of the Specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The words of patent claims have the meaning and scope with which they are used in the specification and the prosecution history. The best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in context.”) (internal citations omitted). Patent Owner does not show that we overlooked or misapprehended the meaning of the claimed “high voltage power source having a voltage of 450-1000 Volts” as used in context of the Specification. We deny rehearing on this basis.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,190,760 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Velos Media, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2020 · IPR2019-00710 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 22 not shown unpatentable over Chen or Chen and Bao under §103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The Decision, however, did not overlook and rather accepted that the DC block group flag was “not necessary (and often redundant).” Dec. 12–13 (quoting Pet. 53). Notwithstanding that proposition, we declined to extend it to compel omitting the DC block group flag and withholding the DC block from the (0,0) inference. Id. at 13. Petitioner faults the Decision’s conclusion because the (0,0) inference cannot be applied if the DC block does not have a group flag (the inference depends on the group flag’s value). See Req. Reh’g 7–8. The Request fails to persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s argument. Asserting that the DC block group flag was “unnecessary (and often redundant)” does not compel a conclusion that the DC block group flag would be omitted from the bitstream. The Decision determined that the Petition does not sufficiently justify such a conclusion and we do not agree with the Request’s post hoc view equating “not necessary” with “would be omitted.” See Req. Reh’g 8–9.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Request argues the Petition establishes “it would have been obvious not to include (i.e., omit) a group flag in the bitstream for the DC block” as “one of three ways to reduce the size of coded video.” Req. Reh’g 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pet. 54). As an independent basis for modifying Chen, the Petition identifies three potential solutions for reducing coded-video size—“not encoding the significant-coefficient-group flag for the block containing the last significant coefficient, the DC block, and the block whose right neighboring block and lower neighboring block both have non-zero significant-coefficient-group flags.” Pet. 54–55. As support, the Petition cites the challenged patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:6–54). Although the Petition also cites declaration testimony (id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94)), that testimony offers no support beyond that in the Petition. Thus, other than through the challenged patent itself, the Petition does not support the factual underpinning required for an obvious-to-try conclusion. That hindsight approach does not establish a persuasive position.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,964,849 - Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-01270 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Apple did not show Samsung disclosed the claimed notification and power-button silencing during an incoming call.
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 the matters misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was addressed in a motion, opposition, or reply. Id. When reconsidering an institution decision, we look for an abuse of discretion, which may be found if there was (1) an erroneous interpretation of law, (2) a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence, or (2) unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c); Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); The Arnold Partnership 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 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“1006, 32)). We found the cited portions of Samsung to describe (1) that if there was no call already in progress, the user could silence an incoming call with the power button, but neither the in-use information nor call waiting would cause the claimed notification, and (2) that if a call was already in progress, call waiting would display a notification for a new call, but there was nothing to indicate that the user could silence a ‘ring,’ or even the call waiting alert, using the power button. See Decision 16. In other words, the “in-use” notification was insufficient because it was not shown to be displayed while a call was incoming, and the “call waiting” notification was insufficient because it was not shown to be employed at a time a user could use the power button to silence a “ring.”” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“New Evidence Petitioner asserts that the “new arguments provided in [the] Request [are] appropriate” because “Petitioners are permitted in a request for rehearing to address inaccurate characterizations that they may not be able” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“distinction,” and the reference need not describe a “separate during incoming calls state.” Instead, the problem is that Samsung’s in-use display is described as showing information that one of skill in the art would expect to be shown after a call has been answered (i.e., the timer), and Petitioner failed to establish that the information would have been displayed before a call was answered. In this proceeding, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). With no showing that the in-use information would be displayed before the call was answered, Petitioner did not carry its burden.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 9,203,940 - Google LLC v. Alex Is The Best, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 18, 2019 · IPR2017-02058 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1–3, 10–14, and 21 because the Petition did not sufficiently show the cited references taught the claimed limitations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“certain teachings in Inoue about the claimed “WSARC.” Req. Reh’g 3. In the Decision, we found that, although the Petition appears to map Inoue’s file server to the claimed “WSARC” by mentioning “WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” (Dec. 16–17 (citing Pet. 17)), aside from that single mention, the Petition does not discuss the term “WSARC” or “website archive and review center” in relation to Inoue, and does not explain adequately why Inoue’s file server teaches or suggests the “WSARC” recited in the claims (id. at 17, 19 (citing Pet. 15–18)). Thus, based on the record presented, we determined that simply stating “a WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” in the Petition without any elaboration does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden required for institution of a review in this case (id. at 19–20 (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“At best, Petitioner’s arguments in its Request for Rehearing attempt to remedy the deficiencies in the Petition our Decision identified, by supplementing the arguments in the Petition. A request for rehearing is not a supplemental petition. Nor is it an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented and developed in the first instance in the Petition. As explained in the Decision (Dec. 19–20), it was Petitioner’s burden “from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphases added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” (emphases added)). The record shows that, rather than overlooking any teachings of Inoue or any “background” discussion by Dr. Madisetti, the Decision simply considered the arguments and explanations of the evidence Petitioner presented in the four corners of the Petition, and properly determined that the Petition did not meet this burden required on Petitioner. Dec. 19–20.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“certain teachings in Inoue about the claimed “WSARC.” Req. Reh’g 3. In the Decision, we found that, although the Petition appears to map Inoue’s file server to the claimed “WSARC” by mentioning “WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” (Dec. 16–17 (citing Pet. 17)), aside from that single mention, the Petition does not discuss the term “WSARC” or “website archive and review center” in relation to Inoue, and does not explain adequately why Inoue’s file server teaches or suggests the “WSARC” recited in the claims (id. at 17, 19 (citing Pet. 15–18)). Thus, based on the record presented, we determined that simply stating “a WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” in the Petition without any elaboration does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden required for institution of a review in this case (id. at 19–20 (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,581,991 - Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2019 · IPR2018-01280 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because it had not overlooked or misapprehended material facts about Brown or the prosecution history.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified and “[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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Dec. 8–9 (emphasis added). Similarly, when weighting the Becton factors, we explicitly found that although the Examiner originally rejected the claims based on Brown, “[f]ollowing an amendment to the claims adding the prompting step along with arguments by the applicant explaining why Brown did not teach that new limitation, the Examiner shifted to new references and no longer relied on Brown.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1002, 142– 149, 156–168, 178–181). In other words, twice we explicitly acknowledged what Petitioner now argues we overlooked.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any material facts. Moreover, Petitioner never explicitly nor implicitly addressed the Becton factors in the Petition, and new arguments are not permitted in a request for rehearing absent exceptional circumstances, of which none have been identified here.” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,844,037 - Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00864 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–15, and 18–21 unpatentable because their scope did not require the buffer to store the specified information.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“party challenging the decision,” and, “[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 the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s argument as follows.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“misapprehended any argument. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that our Decision was in error regarding independent claims 1, 3, 7, 18, and 23 because these claims have a different scope than claims 17, 22, and 24. As Patent Owner correctly noted, our construction of “dedicated USB connection” is “a USB connection that may include some shared physical communication path and includes a buffer for maintaining dedicated address, configuration and response information for the connection.” Dec. 33. Thus, a dedicated USB connection must include a buffer that is capable of storing/maintaining “dedicated address, configuration and response information” regardless of whether such data is actually stored/maintained therein.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,523,243 - Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00861 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claim 25 unpatentable because its ACR data limitation did not distinguish its scope and the Board had not misapprehended or overlooked the controller argument.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“party challenging the decision,” and, “[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 the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“party challenging the decision,” and, “[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 the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s arguments below.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,627,708 - Nokia Of America Corporation v. Blackberry Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2018 · IPR2018-00583 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Nokia’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 5–17 because Cherian did not disclose the claimed antenna configuration information for the second or third component carrier.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Because Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in denying institution, the Request for Rehearing is denied. 1 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) provides that “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner . . . for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” This does not require that we institute whenever there is conflicting testimony, or that every fact issue be resolved in the petitioner’s favor. We only need view the issue in the light most favorable to the petitioner. We did so here.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“. . . to ‘the number of Nxcarriers,’ constituting the number of data traffic channels” and that “[e]ach different channel . . . requires . . . a separate antenna port.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 85. This means that the NxParamsCount field would reflect the number of antennas/ports used for all data channels, not “antenna configuration for the second component carrier,” as recited in claims 1 and 14, or “antenna configuration for the third component carrier,” as recited in claim 14. For example, if there were four data channels, the NxParamsCount field would be set to four, even though, according to Dr. Min, the “second component carrier” and “third component carrier” would each have only one antenna. There is no genuine issue of fact warranting institution because we find Petitioner’s evidence insufficient even if we accept it as true.1 IV. CONCLUSION We denied institution because we found Petitioner failed to show how Cherian’s NxParamsCount value discloses “antenna configuration information”––including a number of ports/antennas––for “the second component carrier” or the “third component carrier.” Further review of the Petition and the Min Declaration, in light of Petitioner’s Rehearing Request, does not lead us to a different conclusion.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“ports” from the broadest reasonable interpretation of “antenna configuration,” “misapprehended or overlooked Nokia’s arguments that an ‘antenna configuration’—i.e., ‘information regarding how the antenna is configured’—encompasses a number of antenna ports,” and “[i]n particular, . . . misapprehended or overlooked Nokia’s presentation of the ’772 Patent’s specification, which states that a number of antenna ports constitutes an ‘antenna configuration.’” Req. Reh’g 1–2, 6. We did not, however, exclude the number of ports from the broadest reasonable interpretation of “antenna configuration.” Instead, we found that, “[b]y Petitioner’s own admission, what is included in the NxParamsCount field is ‘the number of Nxcarriers,’ not antenna configuration information.” Decision 10. In other words, the skilled artisan would have understood––again, as Nokia acknowledges––that the NxParamsCount field specifies the number of carriers, not information about the antenna configuration information, including a number of antennas or ports. We further found “[t]he fact that the number of channels might be used to glean information about the number of antennas does not mean that the message includes ‘information regarding how the antenna is configured,’” even if the number of antennas happens to be the same as the number of channels, as Nokia alleges. Id. Because the field identifies the number of carriers, not a number of antennas or ports, we concluded that Cherian does not disclose each and every element arranged as recited in the claim, as required for anticipation. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“ports” from the broadest reasonable interpretation of “antenna configuration,” “misapprehended or overlooked Nokia’s arguments that an ‘antenna configuration’—i.e., ‘information regarding how the antenna is configured’—encompasses a number of antenna ports,” and “[i]n particular, . . . misapprehended or overlooked Nokia’s presentation of the ’772 Patent’s specification, which states that a number of antenna ports constitutes an ‘antenna configuration.’” Req. Reh’g 1–2, 6. We did not, however, exclude the number of ports from the broadest reasonable interpretation of “antenna configuration.” Instead, we found that, “[b]y Petitioner’s own admission, what is included in the NxParamsCount field is ‘the number of Nxcarriers,’ not antenna configuration information.” Decision 10. In other words, the skilled artisan would have understood––again, as Nokia acknowledges––that the NxParamsCount field specifies the number of carriers, not information about the antenna configuration information, including a number of antennas or ports. We further found “[t]he fact that the number of channels might be used to glean information about the number of antennas does not mean that the message includes ‘information regarding how the antenna is configured,’” even if the number of antennas happens to be the same as the number of channels, as Nokia alleges. Id. Because the field identifies the number of carriers, not a number of antennas or ports, we concluded that” slip op. at 3
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,253,772 - RPX Corporation v. Spycurity LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · IPR2018-00304 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied RPX’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the Petition lacked a reasoned basis to substitute Dial-Up for Crawford’s call-back connection.
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 that were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering 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 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); The Arnold Partnership 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 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Why the Petition Failed The Decision found that Petitioner’s combination failed due to the “absence of articulated, rational reasoning to support the substitution of the Dial-Up method of connection for the ‘call back’ described in Crawford.” Decision 14. In other words, the Decision found that Petitioner failed to provide a sufficient rationale for substituting the Dial-Up connection for the conventional, point-to-point modem connection described in the Crawford embodiment that used the ring pattern to cause the user system to call the backup system. That problem remains, as the Request for Rehearing does not address the issue. The combination thus fails before one reaches the question of where in the combination a connection to the Internet might be found. This alone is a sufficient reason to deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Why the Petition Failed The Decision found that Petitioner’s combination failed due to the “absence of articulated, rational reasoning to support the substitution of the Dial-Up method of connection for the ‘call back’ described in Crawford.” Decision 14. In other words, the Decision found that Petitioner failed to provide a sufficient rationale for substituting the Dial-Up connection for the conventional, point-to-point modem connection described in the Crawford embodiment that used the ring pattern to cause the user system to call the backup system. That problem remains, as the Request for Rehearing does not address the issue. The combination thus fails before one reaches the question of where in the combination a connection to the Internet might be found. This alone is a sufficient reason to deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction Petitioner’s argument that we construed the claims to “require[e] that the connection between the host system and the Internet itself be made via the Internet” (Req. Reh’g 2) is incorrect. Petitioner appears to confuse the fact that we found the claims satisfied by such an arrangement in the combination to mean that we required the claims to have that arrangement. Our Decision understood the Petition’s combination to contemplate Dial-Up IP being used to connect to the Internet and then to the backup service over the Internet (e.g., via relay.cs.net). See Decision 12. That understanding was drawn from the Petition, which states, for example, “Crawford, in view of Dial-Up IP, teaches creating a connection between the customer computer . . . and the Internet (through an ISP server) using a communication device . . . connected to the host system.” Petition 34 (emphasis added). Critically, however, the arrangement considered in the Decision included a “connection between the host system and the Internet,” as claimed, specifically an Internet link between the user and the backup system. Because we found the Internet connection claim language would be satisfied in the version of the combination we considered, Petitioner has no reasoned basis for complaining about the constructions.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,809,118
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.