- Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00359 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 32, 34, 37–38, 55–57, and 59 are unpatentable over Cunningham; claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 24–31, 36, 42, 43, 46–49, 51–54, and 60–64 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“This argument is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the stated conclusion is vague with respect to the limitation at issue. Petitioner argues that “the node 18 must translate messages” (id. (emphasis added)), but does not explicitly argue that all three recited pieces of information—“the select information, the transmitter identification information, and transceiver identification information”—must be translated. Even assuming Mason’s node must translate all three recited pieces of information, Petitioner does not show that all such translated pieces of information must be further transmitted to the AMR server over the WAN. In particular, Petitioner does not show that transceiver identification information would have to be further transmitted.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that such a construction is “non- specific, vague and unhelpful” in the context of the ’692 patent. Reply. 16. Patent Owner’s construction limits “low power” to signals having a “limited transmission range,” but provides no guidance of what “limited” means, or what its boundaries might be. Petitioner argues correctly that Patent Owner’s construction fails to address questions its proposed construction raises, such as, what a ‘limited’ transmission range means and how ‘limited’ the range must be (i.e., what the range’s distance should be), whether the transmission range depends on the particular system or application, and whether other factors should be considered in determining whether the transmission range is limited.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Notably, Petitioner says these contentions are “further evidence” but does not explain how this evidence is to be used to buttress Cunningham’s disclosure or how it is to be combined with Cunningham’s disclosure. Specifically, given the limited contentions in the Petition detailed above, Petitioner does not explain how Energy Management Services or the “routines” described in the Provisional send control signals from the computer to the actuator as required by the claims. For example, even if we to accept that the “Williams Network Control Center” creates control signals as required by the claim Petitioner has not explained how those signals are translated from network transfer protocol to RF signals and then translated to an analog signal that can be used at an actuator. Even though the ’978 Provisional is allegedly incorporated by reference, an obviousness determination still requires--“[w]hether a [obviousness challenge] is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference[--] a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2017); c.f. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obviousness shown despite fact that “all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment” because the party showed motivation to combine and reasonable likelihood of success). Additionally, “there must be evidence presented on the obviousness of the claim as a whole.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727); see also Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim”). Here, the “routines” described in the ’978 Provisional work differently than the “utility prices” embodiment of Cunningham. Petitioner has not explained how those would work together to meet the claim limitations.” slip op. at 30
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner’s argument is inapposite, as it is premised on reading a limitation into the claims, namely that the information encoded in the RF signal must be translated in real time. Further, we agree with Petitioner, that even under such an erroneously narrow construction, Cunningham would meet the limitation. In that regard, Petitioner argues that, “although Cunningham discloses sending cumulative data readings, individual signals from the sensor are identified by the gateway and this information is then transmitted (with transmitter identification information) to a computer on the WAN.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶31–32; Ex. 1004, 31:6–28). Petitioner argues, and we are persuaded, that “Cunningham explains that the ‘most current cumulative reading’ is the current absolute ‘reading’ (i.e., information signal) from the sensor (Ex. 1004, 13:44–46) and that two cumulative readings can be used to ‘interpolate’ and ‘recover’ a missed reading (i.e., a signal from the sensor).” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:44–56; 31:6–27; Pet. 75; Ex. 1002 ¶¶115, 152; Ex. 1046 ¶32). We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. Lastly, claim 32 also recites “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” To meet this limitation, Petitioner accurately points out that “Cunningham discloses that[,] in response to receiving information from the sensor interface module through the data collection modules, the host module compiles the information into a user specified readable format and stores it for later retrieval upon demand from a customer computer or workstation.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–27, 44:12–41, 44:53–64, 46:44–61, 47:44–54, Ex. 1002 ¶¶138–140). Patent Owner does not contest that Cunningham discloses “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” See PO Resp. 22–29, 41–46. We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,437,692 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,437,692 - Technical Consumer Products, Inc. / Nicor Inc. et al. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01280 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3 and 4 were not shown unpatentable over Zhang, Soderman, and Silescent.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(collectively, “Lead Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’844 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner, Lighting Science Group Corp. (“Patent Owner”), did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition. We determined that the information presented in the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Lead Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of the ’844 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on November 1, 2017, as to claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of the ’844 patent. Paper 10 (“Dec. on Inst.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ definitions of the level of skill differ in minor respects, including the number of years of experience and whether or not a 5 Patent Owner has not put forth any evidence or argument related to secondary considerations of nonobviousness. background in chemical engineering should be included. At his deposition, Dr. Bretschneider testified that he included a degree in chemical engineering in his definition because that degree confers expertise in heat transfer. Ex. 1023, 37:14–22. We find this testimony persuasive. Regarding the difference in years of experience, both declarants agree that three years of experience is appropriate. For these reasons, we define the person of ordinary skill in the art as having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or a related field and three years of experience in designing LED lighting products or fixtures. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’844 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 8–9), however, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have read Chou as narrowly as Patent Owner contends. Not only does Chou state that its fixture “may be configured to be installed into a recessed can housing having other geometries,” but also “recessed housings . . . developed with different geometries.” Ex. 1012, 3:65–4:7 (emphasis added). In light of this express teaching in Chou, we do not agree that Chou’s teachings are confined to 5- and 6-inch can lights, or even can lights in general. Junction boxes represent another geometry that can serve as a recessed housing for an LED light fixture. See Ex. 1023, 30:17–31:7 (Dr. Bretschneider testifying that, by 2009, LED light fixtures attached to junction boxes were known with “certain parts” inside the box). In addition, the fact that certain figures of Chou might depict a junction box external to a can light does not mean that junction boxes are excluded from the universe of “recessed housings” contemplated in the quotation above. In addition, Patent Owner contends Petitioner has provided no reason or motivation to combine Wegner with Chou. PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner also contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined Wegner with Chou because Wegner pertains to a light with a tall reflector, which must be installed in a can light fixture (and not a junction box). Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–75, 133–137). Yet Petitioner only cites Wegner for its teaching of removing an Edison base from an LED light fixture to facilitate direct wiring, and not for anything to do with reflectors. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 53; Ex. 1016, 11:3–32). As such, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Wegner’s light reflectors amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, which is not the test for obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”). We are persuaded that, based on Wegner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to remove the Edison base of Chou’s fixture regardless of the type of reflector and housing used in Wegner’s fixture. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Regarding motivation, Petitioner posits a market-based rationale, namely, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make a version of Chou’s luminaire to fit nominally sized junction boxes to serve the new construction market. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). Dr. Coleman testifies that the Edison base would have been removed to make Chou’s luminaire work in a junction box. Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan wanting to modify Chou for use in junction boxes would have known to make this modification.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,967,844 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,967,844 - PTAB · Oct 17, 2018 · IPR2017-00467 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because the Uchida and Bramhill combination did not show the claimed write restriction for claims 15, 18, 24, and 25.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We “review [our] decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c). The request for rehearing “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. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not shown unpatentable
“In our Decision, we determined Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenges combining Uchida and Bramhill because Petitioner failed to show teachings or suggestions sufficient to meet the following limitation of independent claim 15: “providing restricted-access to the storage device when the storage device does not store the device-specific security information by preventing the digital data from being written to the storage device during the write access.” Dec. 13–15. We similarly determined Petitioner failed to show teachings or suggestions sufficient to meet the commensurate limitation recited in independent claim 18: “configuring the storage drive to prevent write access to the storage device when the security information is not sensed.” Id. at 15.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,968,459 - Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01979 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Huawei’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on grounds 4–6 because the Petition did not adequately explain how to harmonize the references’ conflicting teachings.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We “review [our] decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c). The request for rehearing “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. § 42.71(d). After considering the Request for Rehearing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in denying institution. We deny the Request for Rehearing for the reasons that follow. slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Id. Figure 1 of R1-071000 identifies the scope of its contribution as limited to transmission of control information together with data information. Id. Thus, R1-071000, on its face, is directed to the opposite scenario of R1- 072122, which is directed to transmitting control information without data. Id.; see also Dec. 14–15 citing (Ex. 1008, 1 (Title: “Data non-associated control signal transmission with UL data.”)). Even if we were to accept arguendo Petitioner’s first argument that R1-071000 invites skilled artisans to expand and apply the data mapping scheme of R1-072122, such an invitation does not remedy Petitioner’s failure to explain sufficiently how one with ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of R1- 072122 to transmit control signals with data, contrary to the express teachings of that reference. See Reh’g Req. 4; Pet. 85–86. For instance, Petitioner does not address how one would reconcile the two references’ diametrically opposed teachings regarding placement of the ACK/NAK. As we stated: Finally, although the cited portions of R1-071000 teach placing data in the symbols directly adjacent to the symbol containing the reference signal, R1-071000 depicts placing the ACK/NAK in the symbols farthest from the symbol containing the reference signal––directly opposite to the cited teachings of R1-072122 describing placing the ACK/NAK in the symbols directly adjacent to the reference signal. Ex. 1008, Figs. 4, 5. Here too, Petitioner and Dr. Akl do not address how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have harmonized the disparate teachings of these two references. Dec. 15 (bold emphasis added; italics original). Absent sufficient evidence and explanation, Petitioner’s argument amounts to impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the challenged claims. See, e.g., In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (cautioning against the use of hindsight).” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Rehearing. Reh’g Req. 4–6. A request for rehearing “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. § 42.71(d). Petitioner identifies a single page of its Petition as “the place where [that argument] was previously addressed.” Reh’g Req. 4–6 (citing Pet. 86). The cited page of the Petition, recites only a single sentence and string citation related to this argument: “Further, a number of 3GPP contributions, including both R1- 071000 and R1-072122, expressly disclose and teach that it is advantageous to limit the number of different transmission formats due to complexity of UE design.” Pet. 86 (citing Ex. 1008, 2, 5; Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1009, 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 225). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); see also, e.g., Captioncall, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2014-00780, Paper No. 40 (PTAB May 19, 2016) (discussing that a rehearing request is “not intended as a vehicle simply to disagree with [the] outcome or to provide new arguments”). Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions on rehearing, the cited portion of the Petition does not provide sufficient explanation for the following statements made in the Request for Rehearing: that “R1-072122 also expressly teaches that a single mapping scheme for control information is preferred”; that “R1-070998, another contemporaneous 3GPP contribution, provides a similar statement”; or that “skilled artisans would have been motivated to apply the same control mapping scheme regardless of the presence of data.” Compare Reh’g Req. 4–6 with Pet. 86. Indeed, the cited page of the Petition does not discuss R1-070777or R1-070998. See Pet. 86. Because Petitioner’s second argument was not presented in its Petition, we do not consider it on rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). To the extent Petitioner contends its declarant Dr. Akl presented the extensive argument that Petitioner now puts forth in its Request for Rehearing, our rules particularly require identification of “the place where [that argument] was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. (emphasis added); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) (prohibiting incorporation of arguments by reference).” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,761,130 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2018 · IPR2016-01404 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted the motion to excuse late filing and denied rehearing, maintaining that claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 were not shown unpatentable over Bensimon.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision . . .” who “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Petitioner’s argument is predicated upon a mischaracterization of our factual findings. Petitioner asserts that we found Bensimon “taught all of the elements of the claim in ‘one possible mode of operation.’” Reh’g Req. 1 (citing Decision 17). We, however, made no such finding. The phrase that Petitioner attributes to us—namely, “one possible mode of operation”—does not appear anywhere in our Final Written Decision. Compare Reh’g Req. 1 (citing Decision 17) to Decision 17. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, we did not find “that Bensimon sometimes teaches all of the elements of the claim” nor did we find “that Bensimon discloses a ‘restricted-access mode’ by disclosing a ‘write protection’ mode.” Reh’g Req. 1–3 (citing Decision, 16–17). Rather, we found the exact opposite—that Bensimon fails to disclose the claimed restricted-access mode because, as claimed, that mode requires the absence of the claimed device-specific security information (i.e. the read/write password, or alternatively the combination of the read/write password and password-enabling flag). Decision 16–17 (citing Reply 16– 22) (“Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as the device-specific security information, yet Petitioner does not identify in Bensimon an explicit disclosure that Bensimon’s storage device operates in the claimed restricted-access mode when the read/write password is absent from the device.”) (bolding added; italics original). slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claim” nor did we find “that Bensimon discloses a ‘restricted-access mode’ by disclosing a ‘write protection’ mode.” Reh’g Req. 1–3 (citing Decision, 16–17). Rather, we found the exact opposite—that Bensimon fails to disclose the claimed restricted-access mode because, as claimed, that mode requires the absence of the claimed device-specific security information (i.e. the read/write password, or alternatively the combination of the read/write password and password-enabling flag). Decision 16–17 (citing Reply 16– 22) (“Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as the device-specific security information, yet Petitioner does not identify in Bensimon an explicit disclosure that Bensimon’s storage device operates in the claimed restricted-access mode when the read/write password is absent from the device.”) (bolding added; italics original).” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,968,459 - Eset, LLC / Eset Spol S.R.O. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2018 · IPR2017-01738 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving review instituted on all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petition.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Nevertheless, like Petitioner, the panel “is not aware of a single case where a partially-instituted IPR was de-instituted post-SAS, as requested by Patent Owner.” Opp. 5. The panel is sympathetic to the position in which institution of the Freund-based grounds places Patent Owner. If now faced with the Petition in the first instance, and understanding that we have only a “binary choice,” it may well be appropriate to deny the Petition in its entirety. But we have been instructed that the Office SAS Guidance is to be interpreted with the weight of Office policy as precluding termination of a partially instituted proceeding in response to SAS Institute. Given that constraint, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in our modification Order to include review of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Thus, notwithstanding the panel’s significant reservations, we continue to give effect to the Director’s policy guidance, and deny Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“SAS procedure outlined herein and determines that the trial must be instituted on all grounds or none, Patent Owner requests that the proceedings be terminated pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Req. Reh’g 10. In making this request, Patent Owner raises important issues regarding the interplay of SAS Institute and 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The panel is sensitive to Patent Owner’s concern that Under the full-institution full-review paradigm laid out in the Board’s Modified Institution Order and envisioned by the Guidelines, Patent Owners will be forced to defend against the very types of harassing challenges that these sections of the America Invents Act [35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d)] were designed to prevent, namely to “prevent parties from mounting attacks on patents that raise issues that are substantially the same as issues that were already before the Office with respect to the patent.” Id. at 6 (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S1360 at S1376 (Mar. 8, 2011) (remarks of Senator Kyl); citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011) (warning the AIA’s procedures should not be used as tools for harassment)).5 Nevertheless, like Petitioner, the panel “is not aware of a single case where a partially-instituted IPR was de-instituted post-SAS, as requested by Patent Owner.” Opp. 5. The panel is sympathetic to the position in which institution of the Freund-based grounds places Patent Owner. If now faced with the Petition in the first instance, and understanding that we have only a “binary choice,” it may well be appropriate to deny the Petition in its entirety. But we have been instructed that the Office SAS Guidance is to be interpreted with the weight of Office policy as precluding termination of a partially instituted proceeding in response to SAS Institute. Given that constraint, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in our modification Order to include review of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,975,305 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2018 · IPR2017-01903 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Power Integrations’ rehearing request, leaving institution denied because it did not show Mammano and the SMP3 Datasheet were publicly accessible printed publications.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. 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, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen 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) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, “‘[p]ublic accessibility’ is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a ‘printed publication.’” Inst. Dec. 9 (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see, e.g., L-3 Commc’n. Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC, Case IPR2014- 00832, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2014) (Paper 9) (applied reference not shown to be publicly accessible); C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Case IPR2014-00727, slip op. at 20–22 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2014) (Paper 15) (applied reference shown to be publicly accessible). Consequently, “[a] reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”’ Inst. Dec. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). The status of a reference as a printed publication is a legal conclusion “based on underlying factual determinations.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348 (citing In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“we should find that Mammano is a printed publication consistent with the requirements of In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Reh’g Req. 10; see id. at 7–10. We decline to draw now the conclusions argued for the first time in this Request for Rehearing. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity for the requestor to present new arguments or evidence. It goes without saying that we could not have overlooked or misapprehended arguments that Petitioner did not make, and it is not an abuse of discretion not to consider such arguments. Thus, Petitioner’s submission of new arguments and evidence in its Request for Rehearing is both improper and unpersuasive.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Reh’g Req. 13–14. Although we did not require that Petitioner show “every possible detail,” we did require Petitioner to make a threshold showing. In finding that Petitioner failed to make the necessary threshold showing, we applied the standard clearly set forth by our reviewing court in Blue Calypso, Kyocera Wireless, and SRI International to Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. Inst. Dec. 9. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to reargue positions, elaborate on previous positions, or to disagree with the analysis or conclusions of the panel. See Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. v. Oil-Dri Corp. of Amer., Case IPR2015-00737, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2017) (Paper 39) (“Merely disagreeing with our analysis or conclusions does not serve as a proper basis for a request for rehearing.”).” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation - National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Technical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00699 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Assanelli; claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable over Kiefer and Assanelli; claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable over Lam and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“In addition, on April 5, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment seeking cancelation of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 of the ’518 patent (Paper 44), which we granted (Paper 50). Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’518 patent remain in trial. Id.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of 13 ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’518 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“to . . . compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” (Ex. 1001, 10:4–7), and that requirement is captured by our construction of that claim phrase to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular” 18 (Inst. Dec. 8). To the extent Patent Owner contends that the term “computer” should be understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., as referring to a device for performing calculations on data, we agree, and observe that such understanding is captured by our original construction. Accordingly, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Decision to Institute (id.), we construe the phrase “causing a computer means to use at least some of the information contained in said computer readable recording to compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular.”” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,401,518 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,401,518 - National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Technical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00648 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 4 was held unpatentable as anticipated by Assanelli and obvious over Kiefer and Assanelli and over Lam and Assanelli.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“On April 5, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment, disclaiming and canceling claims 1–3 of the ’887 patent (Paper 41), which was granted on July 11, 2018 (Paper 44).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of 11 sophistication of the ’887 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’887 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s description of a relevant skilled artisan as possessing at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical, petroleum, or chemical engineering, and having at least 2–3 years of experience with pipe testing technology is supported by the record as a” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of 11 sophistication of the ’887 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’887 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Claim 4 expressly requires the use of a “computer means to compute the effect of stresses on the wall of said tubular good” (Ex. 1001, 10:36–38), and that requirement is captured by our construction of that claim phrase to 16 mean “using a computer to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular” (Inst. Dec. 8). To the extent Patent Owner contends that the term “computer” should be understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., as referring to a device for performing calculations on data, we agree, and observe that such understanding is captured by our original construction. Accordingly, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Decision to Institute (Inst. Dec. 8–9), we construe the phrase “using a computer to compute the effect of stresses on the wall of said tubular good” to mean “using a computer to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular.” We further note that there is no meaningful dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation of “computer,” as Petitioner contends that Assanelli discloses the use of a computer to perform calculations, i.e., finite element analysis (“FEA”) or finite element modeling (“FEM”),2 using data obtained from inspection of a tubular good in order to model the effect of various stresses on that tubular good. See, e.g., Pet. 23–24 (describing the data acquisition and FEA modeling steps disclosed by Assanelli).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,263,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,263,887 - Bose Corporation v. Freebit AsRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00130 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 1–13 would have been obvious over the cited references.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We do not read Dr. Casali’s cross-examination testimony to include admissions that Aber’s device only loosely fits the crus of helix. Rather, in context, Dr. Casali considered “accommodate” and “partially embrace,” as used in Aber, to be synonymous with “conform,” as used in the ’995 patent. Ex. 2015, 11:14–12:12, 13:11–19, 17:4–18. Moreover, we do not read Aber’s references to “accommodate,” “partially embrace,” and “partially surround” in isolation, but rather in the context of its full disclosure. As noted above and in the Decision (Dec. 35), Aber expressly states that its device embraces the crus of helix in such a way as to provide “much greater contact” between the device and the crus of helix and “assist in firmly retaining” the device in the ear. Ex. 1006, 1:17–83. To the extent that “accommodate,” “partially embrace,” and “partially surround” could be read more broadly, Aber makes clear that its device substantially conforms to the concha at the position of the crus of helix. Thus, we did not overlook Dr. Casali’s testimony.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not read Dr. Casali’s cross-examination testimony to include admissions that Aber’s device only loosely fits the crus of helix. Rather, in context, Dr. Casali considered “accommodate” and “partially embrace,” as used in Aber, to be synonymous with “conform,” as used in the ’995 patent. Ex. 2015, 11:14–12:12, 13:11–19, 17:4–18. Moreover, we do not read Aber’s references to “accommodate,” “partially embrace,” and “partially surround” in isolation, but rather in the context of its full disclosure. As noted above and in the Decision (Dec. 35), Aber expressly states that its device embraces the crus of helix in such a way as to provide “much greater contact” between the device and the crus of helix and “assist in firmly retaining” the device in the ear. Ex. 1006, 1:17–83. To the extent that “accommodate,” “partially embrace,” and “partially surround” could be read more broadly, Aber makes clear that its device substantially conforms to the concha at the position of the crus of helix. Thus, we did not overlook Dr. Casali’s testimony.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,976,995
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.