- Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 25, 2017 · IPR2017-00756 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied on all grounds; Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in the Board’s finding that the Sato–Oberg combination was inadequately explained.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The Petition is ambiguous as to whether Petitioner relies on Sato or Oberg to teach a “rinse chamber.” On the one hand, Petitioner asserts that a “PHOSITA would have understood that Sato suggests rinsing within an enclosure” ([Pet.] 42) and “Sato discloses ‘a rinse chamber’” (id. at 43). On the other hand, Petitioner’s claim chart relies on Oberg alone as disclosing a “rinse chamber.” Id. at 47–48.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,144,150 - Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00712 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 7–30 are unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend claims 27–30 with substitute claims 31–34 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“unpatentable. Therefore, we address Patent Owner’s contingent motion to enter proposed substitute claims 31–34. MTA 1, App. (claims 31–34). For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner’s motion is denied.” slip op. at 66
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“McSorley’s Declaration in connection with Exhibits 1089 or 1090 to support our decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1089 and 1090 is denied as moot.” slip op. at 81
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“e. Conclusion When we balance Petitioner’s strong evidence of obviousness against” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(a) regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. In this case, the claimed treatment method, administering a 20 to 25 mg/m2 dose of cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone to docetaxel-refractory metastatic prostate cancer patients, was disclosed more than one year before the earliest effective filing date to which the ’592 patent might be entitled.4 Therefore, for the reasons that follow and based on our review of the complete trial record, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 and 7–30 of the ’592 patent are unpatentable. We further determine that Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend claims 27–30 is denied.” slip op. at 4
Patent outcomesUS 8,927,592 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,927,592 - PTAB · Aug 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01565 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Mylan’s rehearing request, leaving claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25 uninstituted because the Petition did not show the Januvia Label and Huettner were printed publications.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS 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 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. 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); Arnold” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“a trial is based on “the information presented in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), in an inter partes review, a petitioner may only challenge the claims of a patent based on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” and the petitioner has the initial burden of production to show that an asserted reference is prior art to the challenged claims under a relevant subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Dec. 16. As explained in our Decision, we have often required a petitioner to make a threshold showing that the reference relied upon was publicly accessible as a printed publication prior to the effective filing date of a challenged patent to satisfy the initial burden of production. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (Paper 14) (noting that petitioner has the burden to make a threshold showing that a reference is “printed publication” prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b)); Frontier Therapeutics, LLC v. Medac Gesellschaft Für Klinische Spezialpräparate MBH, Case IPR2016-00649, slip op. at 22 (PTAB September 1, 2016) (Paper 10). We further explained that “[a] given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been 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.’” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)); Dec. 17.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“To the extent Petitioner now argues that “the declaration testimony of Dr. Davidson and the facial indicia on Huettner are sufficient” to make a threshold showing that Huettner was publically accessible as of the relevant date (Reh’g Req. 13), we are not persuaded. We note that Dr. Davidson testifies, without elaboration, that “Huettner was published in June 2007.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Petitioner, however, did not rely on Dr. Davidson’s testimony on this issue in the Petition. Moreover, even if Dr. Davidson’s testimony had been relied on, Petitioner does not point to any evidence—nor can we discern any in Dr. Davidson’s Declaration—that would reasonably suggest that Dr. Davidson has personal knowledge as to when and how Huettner was made available to the public. Accordingly, Dr. Davidson’s conclusory declaration of Huettner’s publication date is entitled to little or no weight. See Dell, Inc. v. Selene Commc’n Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014- 01411, slip op. at 22–23 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2015) (Paper 23) (explaining that an expert declaration is not enough to prove a prior art reference’s publication date where the expert declaration merely repeats assertions made by the petitioner).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied merits
“Decision on Institution, and Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, we are not persuaded that we erred in declining to institute trial on claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25. Petitioner, having failed to meet its burden of providing a threshold showing that the Januvia Label and Huettner are printed publications under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25 of the ’156 patent would have been obvious over the Januvia Label, Huettner, and Mikhail or the Knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art..” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,853,156 - Oned Material LLC v. Nexeon LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00961 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–23 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). In determining the broadest reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A patentee may define a claim term in a manner that differs from its ordinary meaning; however, any special definitions must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the proper construction of the term “first dimension.” Pet. 13–14; Prelim. Resp. 24 n.6. Because the current Decision does not depend on the proper construction of the term “first dimension,” and because the parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 18–23 of the ’437 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. Farrell already provides a metallurgical grade powder. Thus, it is not evident why the general cost of metallurgical grade powders would have caused the ordinary artisan to pillar Farrell’s porous silicon particles using the technique of Peng. Moreover, Petitioner does not explain persuasively why pillared particles would otherwise be desirable in the applications identified in Farrell, or how Farrell’s particles could substitute for Peng’s expensive pillared silicon wafers in Peng’s photovoltaic applications. See Ex. 1005, 1064 (noting that the disclosed “SiNW arrays give promising results for possible applications in high-efficiency solar-cell manufacture”), 1066 (“The most interesting feature of the as-synthesized SiNW arrays is the significant suppression of reflection over the visible-light spectral range.”); Prelim. Resp. 21 (noting that Farrell’s materials are not “lithium-ion battery anode materials”); see also In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (noting that a proposed modification must not render a device unsuitable for its intended purpose). Thus, on this record, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why cost concerns would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to pillar Farrell’s particles using the metal–assisted etching technique of Peng.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,437 - Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single 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, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,398,038 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419 - 3shape Medical A/S v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbHNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00481 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable: Mushabac did not anticipate claims 1–5 and 9–10, and the asserted combinations did not render claims 1–8 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that only the following claim phrase requires explicit construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (internal citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner provides evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is someone with a D.M.D. (Doctor of Medicine in Dentistry or Doctor of Dental Medicine) or D.D.S. (Doctor of Dental Surgery) and at least several years of experience with 3-D technology used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 63–66). Alternatively, such a person may have a computer engineering degree or be a trained dental laboratory technician having substantial experience with 3-D technology and software applications used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Id. Patent Owner has accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA for purposes of this IPR. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA in this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis of “optical measuring of the visible surfaces of the jaw” Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Ganz agreed under cross-examination that “Mushabac optically measures the teeth [a]nd then it uses … bone sounding to measure the surfaces of the jawbone.” Ex. 2026, 252:11–20. When directly asked where a three-dimensional optical measuring of visible surfaces of the jaw was “stipulated” in Mushabac, Dr. Ganz could not identify any passage to support that assertion made in paragraph 100 of his Declaration. Id. at 248:16–252:20. We find Dr. Ganz’s cross-examination testimony to be highly persuasive and consistent with the disclosures in Mushabac and the testimony of Dr. Erickson. For the reasons given above, we determine that Mushabac does not expressly disclose an “optical” (light-based) measurement of the “visible surfaces of the jaw” in three dimensions, as recited in claim 1 of the ’006 patent.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 6,319,006 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,319,006 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2017 · IPR2016-01566 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Mylan’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the cited combination rendered claims 1–22 obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In sum, in the Petition, Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the combination of the ’510 publication and Ahrén, Hughes, and/or Brazg would have rendered the subject matter of the challenged claims obvious. On rehearing, we see no error in our findings of fact or conclusions of law. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in denying institution of the challenged claims. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In sum, in the Petition, Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the combination of the ’510 publication and Ahrén, Hughes, and/or Brazg would have rendered the subject matter of the challenged claims obvious. On rehearing, we see no error in our findings of fact or conclusions of law. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in denying institution of the challenged claims. IV.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“as it argues now in its request for rehearing, that we should apply a legal presumption of obviousness. In fact, the Petition did not cite Galderma, or numerous other opinions of the Federal Circuit, district courts, and the Board, which Petitioner now relies on in its request for rehearing. The Board could not have misapprehended or overlooked an argument that was not made and case law that was not cited in the Petition. In addition, we reiterate, as we stated in our Decision denying institution, in an inter parte review, Petitioner has the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability. Dec. 8 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). According to Petitioner, Galderma holds “Patent Owner has burden of overcoming obviousness presumption ‘where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed invention falls within that range.’” Req. Reh’g 1 (quoting Galderma, 737 F.3d at 737–38). To the extent Petitioner argues for a presumption of obviousness that shifts the burden of persuasion to Patent Owner, such an argument is misplaced. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that the “burden-shifting framework does not apply in the adjudicatory context of an IPR”).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“In contrast, here, Petitioner relies solely on the teachings of the ’510 publication—a preferred dose of 1 to 100 mg administered “1 to 4 times a day”— to arrive at the claimed dosage of 2.5 mg or 5 mg. The Petition simply does not provide the same type of evidence and context as those in Galderma, sufficient for us to apply the requested presumption.1” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,173,859 - Google, Inc. v. Personal Audio LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 28, 2017 · IPR2015-00846 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google's rehearing request and left in place its ruling that claims 1–4, 9, and 13 are unpatentable and claims 5–8, 14–17, 28, and 29 are not unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION The party filing a request for rehearing of a final written decision has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place at which each matter was previously addressed in its papers during the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Therefore, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review.” slip op. at 3
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive. The agreed upon interpretation of the skip back algorithm to which Petitioner refers states: Specifically, this algorithm includes the following steps: (1) if the currently playing audio program file has played for a predetermined amount of time, resetting the playback position to the beginning of the audio program file; and (2) playing the audio program file from its beginning.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“properly before us now, Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive on its merits. Petitioner’s argument presupposes that it is irrelevant that Inazawa only sets a reference point in time for tracking durations t2 and t3 when the user first presses the back button after playback has started. Inazawa’s system does not react to a first back button press as required by claim 5 because before Inazawa’s first button press, Inazawa does not measure any duration at all. Stated another way, Inazawa’s system always reacts to the initial press of its back button by restarting playback at the beginning of the currently playing track regardless of when that initial button press occurs. Ex. 1009, 6:17–60. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Walker agrees as he explains in the following testimony: When the program selecting key 11 is initially manipulated (producing the signal Ts illustrated in Fig. 2A), a reverse program selection mode is entered where: 1) a timer is started (duration of t1 in Fig. 2B); and 2) a skip to the beginning of the current audio program (identified at address N) is performed that includes moving the optical head to the area according to address N (the beginning of the current audio program) and playing the audio program therefrom. * * * Using the program selecting key 11 once again while the program is playing and within the duration t3, would cause a skip backward to the beginning of the preceding program identified at address N-1, the previous track. But manipulating the program selecting key 11 when the duration t3 has expired would cause a skip to the beginning of the current audio program identified at address N, the current track. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–13 (citing Ex. 1009, 6:17–7:56) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Essentially, Dr. Walker explains that Inazawa does not measure any durations of time until after a skip back button is pressed and that the first press of a back button always restarts playback from the beginning of the currently selected audio program. 1. Claim 5 Claim 5 requires monitoring the duration of playback from the beginning of playback and comparing that duration to a predetermined amount of time to evaluate how to respond to every issuance of a “skip backward program selection command.” Inazawa fails to meet this requirement for its first press of a back button, and meeting the requirement in connection with the second of two consecutive presses of a back button is insufficient to meet the claimed skip back algorithm.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,509,178 - Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC / Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 22, 2017 · IPR2015-01903 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 24, 26, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over the Advisory Committee Art and Korfhage.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“8 Petitioner relies on Dr. Valuck’s testimony (Ex. 1007 ¶ 21) to describe a POSA as having a “Bachelor’s or Doctor of Pharmacy degree and a license as a registered pharmacist with 3-5 years of relevant work experience, or a computer science undergraduate degree or equivalent work experience and work experience relating to business applications, for example, including familiarity with drug distribution procedures.” (Id.) “Alternatively, a POSA may have a blend of computer science and pharmacy drug distribution knowledge and/or experience.” (Id.) “[S]uch a POSA may have computer science education qualifications and experience relating to computerized drug distribution systems, or pharmacy education qualifications and experience relating to computerized drug distribution systems.” (Id.). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a POSA. Therefore, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s description of a POSA to our analysis in this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“13A–C as “descriptions of sample reports obtained by querying a central database having fields represented in Fig. 7.” Ex. 1001, 8:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:59–61 (also describing Figs. 13A–C as “sample reports”). The description of sample reports is hardly exclusionary of the type of ad hoc early prescription refill report described in Figure 4B, which involves generating a risk diversion report whenever a patient calls to request an early refill. Id. at Fig. 4B (406, 432, 434). Thus, we do not agree that the specification excludes the generation of ad hoc or intermittent reports from the term “periodic reports,” or refers only to reports obtained at regular frequencies or intervals, even if the term “periodic” includes such reports. To the contrary, the ’963 patent specification and prosecution history support the inclusion of ad hoc reports, such as risk diversion reports generated whenever an early prescription refill is requested, within the meaning of the term “periodic reports.”” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“the Board issued final written decisions, dated after Patent Owner’s Response, determining that the ACA was publicly accessible and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Reply 4 (citing Case IPR2015-00551, slip op. at 38 (PTAB July 27, 2016 (Paper 70))). Petitioner is correct. Therefore, we adopt our finding in IPR2015-00551 for the same reasons given therein, namely that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Exhibits 1003–1006 (the ACA) were publicly accessible to an interested POSA exercising reasonable diligence more than one year before the December 17, 2002 earliest priority date of the ’963 patent. Case IPR2015-00551, slip op. at 21–38 (PTAB July 27, 2016 (Paper 70)); 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Petitioner’s evidence of record regarding the public accessibility issue in IPR2015-00551 is also of record in the present case, and the exhibit numbers are the same, but for a few exceptions.11 See Exhibits 1003–1006, 1007 (¶ 64), 1015, 1019, 1020, 1027, 1028, 1052, and 1053.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“the evidence that a POSA would have been motivated to distribute the ACA’s single, centralized computer database over multiple computers, for reasons of cost, efficiency, and the anticipated volume of prescription-related information to be received, entered, and queried. Pet. 25–30 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003, 24:21–25; Ex. 1004, 110; Ex. 1005, cover letter; Ex. 1006, 6 n.24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 78, 79, 85–87), 51–52 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 144; Ex. 1037, 276).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,731,963 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,731,963
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.