• Gridco, Inc. v. Varentec, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2017 · IPR2017-01135 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the asserted prior art did not show the claimed non-continuous voltage monitoring, so Petitioner failed the reasonable-likelihood threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing and because Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the asserted prior art teaches a shunt-connected, switch-controlled VAR source with a processor configured to enable the VAR source to “non-continuously monitor the proximate voltage,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, and similarly recited in independent claim 17, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’867 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “how the asserted prior art teaches a shunt-connected, switch-controlled VAR source with a processor configured to enable the VAR source to “non-continuously monitor the proximate voltage,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, and similarly recited in claim 17. In particular, Patent Owner contends “[t]he ‘867 Patent claims non-continuous monitoring of proximate voltage prior to enabling a VAR source whereas the Cited References teach continuous monitoring of voltage.” Prelim. Resp. 24 (emphasis omitted). Because we find this issue dispositive, we need not reach Patent Owner’s other arguments. For the following reasons, we find Petitioner’s proof deficient in demonstrating the prior art discloses a switchcontrolled VAR source having a processor configured to enable the VAR source to “non-continuously monitor the proximate voltage” when determining whether to enable the corresponding VAR component.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “voltage,’ be construed as proposed by Patent Owner” in the related litigation. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1011, 8); see also Ex. 1012, 10–11 (Patent Owner’s claim construction brief). Patent Owner does not address the construction of the phrase in its Preliminary Response. In the related litigation, “[t]he parties agreed” to the district court’s construction of “non-continuously monitor the proximate voltage”: “[w]aiting for a delay and then evaluating the proximate voltage to determine, after the delay, whether to enable a VAR compensation component based on the proximate voltage but not evaluating the proximate voltage during the delay to determine whether to enable a VAR compensation component.” Varentec, Inc. v. Gridco, Inc., No. 16-217-RGA, 2017 WL 3731243, at *7 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017). Considering the claims, Specification, and prosecution history, we are persuaded that this construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, and adopt it for purposes of this Decision. We further conclude that only “non-continuously monitor the proximate voltage” requires interpretation for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,014,867

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.