- NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2022 · IPR2021-01556 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its § 314(a) denial of institution, finding no abuse of discretion in its Fintiv analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Huawei Device Co., Ltd., v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19, 3 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential) (citations omitted). Further, “[a]bsent a showing of ‘good cause’ . . . , new evidence will not be admitted” in connection with a request for rehearing. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 90 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Huawei Device Co., IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 at 4). Thus, a request for rehearing is not generally an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner
“patent’s ‘current [trial] date is well before the Board’s projected deadline’ is inaccurate.” Id. at 2. Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s statement concerning the district court trial date is inaccurate, however, is based on speculation. In the Request, Petitioner calculates that “there is only a one-out-of-three chance that the ’198 Patent will be included” in the district court trial. Id. at 5. But, as Petitioner acknowledges in the Request, “whether or not the ’198 Patent is included in the first trial is entirely under Patent Owner’s control.” Id. at 4. Petitioner presents no evidence that Patent Owner has decided not to include the ’198 patent in the district court trial. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s statement “is inaccurate” is based on Petitioner’s speculation as to what Patent Owner will, or will not, do.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“in weighing relevant factors.” Huawei Device Co., Ltd., v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19, 3 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential) (citations omitted). Further, “[a]bsent a showing of ‘good cause’ . . . , new evidence will not be admitted” in connection with a request for rehearing. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 90 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Huawei Device Co., IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 at 4). Thus, a request for rehearing is not generally an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,776,198 - NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2022 · PGR2022-00005 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied NXP’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of PGR institution on claims 1–20 based on its holistic Fintiv analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Huawei Device Co., Ltd., v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19, 3 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential) (citations omitted). Further, “[a]bsent a showing of ‘good cause’ . . . , new evidence will not be admitted” in connection with a request for rehearing. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 90 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Huawei Device Co., IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 at 4). Thus, a request for rehearing is not generally an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“with the Request. “Ideally, a party seeking to admit new evidence with a rehearing request would request a conference call with the Board prior to filing such a request so that it could argue ‘good cause’ exists for admitting the new evidence. Alternatively, a party may argue ‘good cause’ exists in the rehearing request itself.” Huawei Device Co., IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 at 4; see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 90 (quoting the same). Petitioner did not request a conference call prior to filing the Request to argue that good cause exists and does not present arguments in the Request regarding good cause. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that good cause exists to justify consideration of those exhibits to evaluate whether we erred by overlooking or misapprehending anything in the Decision. B. We Did Not Misapprehend the Significance of the Facts Pertaining to” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner
“argument, we stated that, “[b]ecause the currently scheduled trial in the parallel proceeding is scheduled to begin over two months before our deadline to reach a final decision, this factor weighs somewhat in favor of discretionary denial.” Dec. 9. After discussing all of the Fintiv factors and after “consider[ing] ‘a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,’” we exercised discretion to deny institution of a post-grant review. Id. at 12–13 (quoting Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6).” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,929,734 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00034 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Intel’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution for claims 11, 12, 13, 15, and 17 because the Petition did not sufficiently show Schuckle taught limitation 11[l].
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). With these principles in mind, we address the arguments presented in Petitioner’s Request.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“When it comes to limitation 11[l] (reciting “and [the processing core operable to] enter the first mode of operation in response to the status information indicating data corresponding to the data stored at the first memory has changed”), the Petition does not discuss Schuckle’s memory controller entering the first mode of operation, but instead relies on the operations of processor 110 (rather than memory controller 140) of Schuckle to teach the step recited in limitation 11[l]. Dec. 18–19 (citing Pet. 69–70 (quoting Ex. 1203, 10:58–66, 11:44–53) (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 199–200)). As also discussed in the Decision, in the cited paragraphs of his Declaration, Dr. Jacob similarly identified the operations of processor 110 as corresponding to the step recited in limitation 11[l]. Id. at 19 (quoting Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 199–200). After considering the argument and evidence presented in the Petition, we determined in the Decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate sufficiently how Schuckle’s memory controller 140 satisfies limitation 11[l] of claim 11. Id. at 21.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“affirmative duty to explain in the Petition how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Thus, had Petitioner intended to rely on the purported plain meaning construction of “first mode of operation” as “when the processing core can access both the first and second memories” and argue, under that claim construction, Schuckle’s memory controller 140 teaches limitation 11[1], such an analysis should have been set forth explicitly in the Petition. It was Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate sufficiently in the Petition that the cited prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable, including showing that the Petition’s contentions are supported by evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (emphases added)) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (requiring “the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (emphases added)). The record shows that, rather than overlooking or misapprehending any argument or evidence in the Petition, 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 the burden required on Petitioner for institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 16
NonePatents in suitUS 7,675,806 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Regents Of The University Of MinnesotaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2020 · IPR2017-01186 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ericsson’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b) based on privity with district court defendants.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing of a decision whether to institute an inter partes review, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision, we explained that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) provides that an inter partes review “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Dec. 4. We also explained that in determining whether a petitioner is in privity with another party, we consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). Dec. 4–5. Taylor provides six categories of exceptions to the rule against nonparty preclusion, namely 1) when “[a] person . . . agrees to be bound by the determination of issues in an action between others”; 2) “based on a” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision, we explained that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) provides that an inter partes review “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Dec. 4. We also explained that in determining whether a petitioner is in privity with another party, we consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). Dec. 4–5. Taylor provides six categories of exceptions to the rule against nonparty preclusion, namely 1) when “[a] person . . . agrees to be bound by the determination of issues in an action between others”; 2) “based on a” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,774,309 - Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 17, 2020 · IPR2019-00338 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Cooler Master’s rehearing request, leaving intact the determination that claim 8 was not shown obvious over Morikawa and Takahashi because the petition did not establish the claimed top shoulder.
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 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that “Petitioner has not demonstrated that Morikawa discloses the recited [top shoulder limitation].” Final Dec. 45. In other words, our determination was that Petitioner had not met its burden of proving that a limitation was taught by the prior art, and therefore had not met its burden of proving that the challenged claim is unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In the Final Decision, we stated: Petitioner’s implied construction is that the claimed “shoulder” is the top end of a column. This is inconsistent with the claim language which recites that the “hollow column . . . has a top shoulder disposed near a top end” thus indicating that the top shoulder is not merely the top end of the column but a structure “near” and discernable from the top end of the hollow column.” slip op. at 8
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“based on a misapprehension of the arguments associated with a figure . . . [from page 57] in the Petition,” and that “the Board incorrectly inferred Petitioner’s ‘implied construction’ for the term, ‘[a top] shoulder,’ in claim 8 of the ’680 patent as ‘the top end of a column.’” Req. Reh’g 1 (citing Final Dec. 45). Petitioner further argues that it “has always and consistently pointed to the corner portions located around the top outer rim of the hollow column as meeting the limitation of ‘a top shoulder,’ as shown [in the two figures from pages 56 and 57 of Petition and reproduced above].” Id. at 5–6.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,100,680 - Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00334 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claim 1 was not shown unpatentable over Morikawa, Takahashi, and Nakamura.
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 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“criticism of Morikawa’s heat pipe in its Reply, Petitioner failed to provide any expert testimony to support its argument as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Nakamura. Instead, Petitioner argued that “Nakamura describes some of its advantages over Morikawa’s ‘metal pipe 6’ only” and that “Nakamura is not describing any disadvantages at all associated with Morikawa’s ‘conventional spacer’ by ‘welding and fixing a metal column to upper and lower inner surfaces of the panel.” Pet. Reply 31–32 (citing Nakamura at 4; Morikawa, 4:31‒33). Patent Owner, however, provided expert testimony as to how a person having ordinary skill spacers. PO Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 160). We credited this testimony in our Final Decision. Final Dec. 47 (citing PO Resp. 58); id. at 47–48 (agreeing with Patent Owner’s argument).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“improvement to Morikawa’s heat pipe, and, in fact, found that Nakamura’s teaching of an improvement and criticism of Morikawa’s configuration would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to replace all of Morikawa’s spacers with Nakamura’s concavities. See Final Dec. 47–48 (agreeing with Patent Owner’s arguments as to the manner in which Morikawa would have been modified in light of Nakamura’s disclosure); id. at 69–70 (finding, in the context of independent claim 3, that Petitioner provided adequate reasoning, premised on Nakamura’s criticism, to substitute Nakamura’s concavity for the pipe of Morikawa). Petitioner’s citation to pages 58–59 is misplaced to the extent Petitioner relies on this portion of the Petition for a reason to modify Morikawa to replace only some of Morikawa’s spacers with Nakamura’s concavities. Pages 58–59 of the Petition address Petitioner’s proposed modification of Morikawa to substitute Nakamura’s concavities for Morikawa’s pipes to meet the “depression” limitation found earlier in claim 1. See Pet. 55, 62–63 (Petitioner explaining that the proposed combination is the modification of Morikawa’s pipes “to solve these problems.”). The “spacer” limitation appears later in claim 1 and, similarly, Petitioner’s purported reasoning associated with that spacer limitation appears later in the Petition. See Pet. 71–75. The Petition’s discussion of the earlier “depression” limitation does not include a reason to replace only some of Morikawa’s spacers with Nakamura’s concavities.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,100,680 - Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00337 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving claim 11 not shown unpatentable because the petition did not adequately explain why only some Morikawa spacers would be replaced with Nakamura depressions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“As explained in the Final Decision, upon review and consideration of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, Petitioner failed to show that the combined teachings of Morikawa and Nakamura would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to the combination of conventional spacers, as discussed in Morikawa, and depressions formed by Nakamura’s concavities, as recited in claim 11. Petitioner’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing do not persuade us that we erred in our application of the facts as presented by Petitioner to the standard for determining obviousness, as set forth in KSR, in finding that Petitioner failed to show unpatentability of claim 11. C. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments or evidence in determining that Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of evidence that challenged claim 11 of the ’240 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“not in accordance with the law.” Request 2; see also id. at 6 (arguing that “Petitioner need only provide ‘a reason’ as to why a [person having ordinary skill in the art] would substitute Nakamura’s depressions for some, but not all, of Morikawa’s columns in Morikawa’s device.”). Petitioner discusses the proposed replacement of Morikawa’s “through path” spacers with Nakamura’s concavities, but Petitioner does not discuss why Morikawa’s remaining spacers would also not be similarly replaced. In other words, as explained above, Petitioner provided no reason in its Petition to explain why one would have modified Morikawa by substituting only some spacers with Nakamura’s concavities, when Nakamura teaches making all of its spacers using abutting concavities. Pet. 88‒89 (citing Pokharna ¶ 93, which cross-references itself); Final Dec. 57 (describing Nakamura). As explained in the Final Decision, upon review and consideration of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, Petitioner failed to show that the combined teachings of Morikawa and Nakamura would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to the combination of conventional spacers, as discussed in Morikawa, and depressions formed by Nakamura’s concavities, as recited in claim 11. Petitioner’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing do not persuade us that we erred in our application of the facts as presented by Petitioner to the standard for determining obviousness, as set forth in KSR, in finding that Petitioner failed to show unpatentability of claim 11.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“2. Petitioner’s Burden As also explained in the Final Decision, “Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the claims challenged in the Petition, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018).” Final Dec. 9.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,066,240 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 9, 2020 · IPR2020-00448 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google's rehearing request, leaving in place its discretionary denial of institution based on the duplicative parallel petitions and small number of claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARDS When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The burden of showing that the Institution Decision should be modified is on Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked, and the place” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“precludes filing two petitions when the challenged patent includes potentially indefinite means-plus-function language. Although it is true that we determined Petitioner did “not persuasively argue this case is analogous to [the Trial Practice Guide’s] examples,” this was only one factor in our Decision. Decision 6. Other factors we considered were that the two parallel petitions are duplicative and each addresses only a single, nearly identical claim. Id. As we explained in our Decision, Petitioner could have filed a single petition directed to both claims. Then, even if claim 3 had an unclear means-plus-function term, we still could have instituted the petition if Petitioner had met its burden on claim 1. . . . This is not the kind of situation as in other cases where the Board has denied institution when petitioners met their institution burden on only a small subset of the challenged claims. . . . . [T]he mere fact that each petition addresses a different claim is insufficient to justify filing two petitions. . . . . The highly duplicative nature of these two petitions and the small number of claims at issue further indicates that one petition should have been sufficient. Id. at 7, 8. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that we applied a bright line rule to deny the Petition overlooks the Decision’s application of multiple factors.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,329,934 - Boragen, Inc. v. Syngenta Participations AGRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2020 · IPR2020-00124 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Boragen’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution under § 325(d), finding no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“whether to institute trial for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be found if there was an erroneous interpretation of law, a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence, or an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. 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). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The rehearing request “must specifically identify all matters the [requesting] 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.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends the Board “failed to exercise its discretion under 325(d)” (Req. 2), but this is plainly inconsistent with the Decision, because we did exercise discretion under § 325(d) and denied the Petition because it was based on substantially the same prior art as already considered by the Office. See Dec. 6–35 (analyzing, inter alia, the asserted prior art, the prosecution history, declarant testimony, and the precedential Becton, Dickinson factors under a framework explained further in Advanced Bionics, in route to denial under § 325(d)).1 Petitioner continues, arguing the Board “improperly” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“expert” may opine on the unpatentability of the challenged claims generally represents one factor that we account for in exercising our discretion under § 325(d) (e.g., insofar as it may comprise “additional evidence” addressing prior art that the Office may have already considered). Becton, Dickinson at 17–18. It is not, however, a super-factor that overrides others in the manner urged by Petitioner that would, in effect, require we institute inter partes review so long as the challenge is accompanied by “new” testimony slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“precedential after the Petition was filed, and requests “additional briefing to directly address the Advanced Bionics factors” if this Request is denied. Req. 1 n.1. Petitioner’s request for additional briefing is denied. Additional briefing is unnecessary because the arguments and evidence already submitted by the parties is sufficient for us to make a determination based on the two-part framework in Advanced Bionics. Furthermore, we have reviewed the arguments based on Advanced Bionics submitted by Petitioner on rehearing and do not find them persuasive. Req. 8–10 (“Petitioner highlights such errors herewith separately under the guidelines set forth in Advanced Bionics”). Moreover, Advanced Bionics became precedential six weeks before we denied institution in this case, where discretionary denial” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,130,096 - Square, Inc. v. 4361423 Canada Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 17, 2020 · IPR2019-01651 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Square’s rehearing request; all claims remain in trial on all asserted grounds, including obviousness of claims 1 and 4 over Bear and Vrotsos.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“At this stage of the proceeding, whether our statement was correct is of no moment, because we instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds of unpatentability. Dec. 38. As explained in the Decision,” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,443,239
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.