- Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyRehearing deniedPTAB · May 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01178 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Bio-Rad’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition relied on Saxonov material not shown to be prior art and could not be supplemented on rehearing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Such an approach is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s statements that in an inter partes review, “the petitioner is master of its complaint,” and “the petition [is] the centerpiece of the proceeding.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363, 369 (2020). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). In contravention of these principles, Petitioner’s approach improperly shifts the onus to Patent Owner or the Board to identify and parse out erroneous, and purportedly non-essential, citations to Saxonov and piece together an argument based on the remaining citations. As we stated in the Decision, we decline to assume this task. See Dec. 20. Finally, in the Request, Petitioner attempts to “show[] how Ground 6 is fully supported by undisputed prior art material.” Req. 6. This attempt is improper. Petitioner cannot use the Request as a means to supplement the Petition to identify purportedly essential citations and disavow erroneous or non-essential citations.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Decision, we determined that Petitioner had not shown that all of the portions of Saxonov that Petitioner relied on in its unpatentability arguments qualify as prior art to the challenged claims. See Dec. 17–24. On this basis, we found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’170 patent.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,770,170 - Cargill, Incorporated v. Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01360 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Cargill’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 6–9, and 11–24 because the petition did not show a reason to combine the selected prior-art data without hindsight.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Upon request for rehearing, we assess a decision on institution “for an abuse of discretion” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2020)), which occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law,” “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). The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2020). 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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. We have reviewed Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and carefully considered all the arguments presented. For the following reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As discussed in the Decision, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). No matter the result of combining the allegedly “readily available and well-known” information taken from particular examples from the “documentary evidence” with Petrauskaite’s disclosure, a POSITA had to have been motivated to do so at the time the invention was made.1 What is missing from the Petition is the “why.” The only motivating force in this case appears to be hindsight spurring Petitioner on to choose particular examples of palm stearin disclosed in Deffense and the soybean oil in Neff in order to justify its assertion that Petrauskaite discloses the claimed wt% ranges of triglyceride classes.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). No matter the result of combining the allegedly “readily available and well-known” information taken from particular examples from the “documentary evidence” with Petrauskaite’s disclosure, a POSITA had to have been motivated to do so at the time the invention was made.1 What is missing from the Petition is the “why.” The only motivating force in this case appears to be hindsight spurring Petitioner on to choose particular examples of palm stearin disclosed in Deffense and the soybean oil in Neff in order to justify its assertion that Petrauskaite discloses the claimed wt% ranges of triglyceride classes.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s. We find no instance in the Petition in which “motivation” and “iodine value” are discussed together or linked in any way. The same can be said of Dr. Marangoni’s declaration. And, as noted in the Decision, it was not until the Preliminary Reply that Petitioner argued that specific data on fatty acid wt% used for the conversion calculations were selected to represent “knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art” due to similarity of the iodine value (“IV”) of the palm stearin (and soybean oil) disclosed in Petrauskaite. See Prelim. Reply 2–3. New evidence or argument in the Preliminary Reply that could have presented earlier is not permitted. On this record, we find Petitioner relies its Rehearing Request on arguments about a motivation to combine, stemming from the significance of iodine values, that were not raised in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to support that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked arguments in the Petition about the significance of iodine values.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,645,473 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00013 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding its new arguments untimely and unpersuasive as to the aerosol outlet limitation for claims 1–19.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in a petition. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked matters or arguments that were not asserted in the Petition. We deny the Rehearing Request because it is based on new arguments that Petitioner did not present in the Petition. B. Petitioner’s Arguments Are Unpersuasive Alternatively, even if we consider the new arguments raised for the first time in the Rehearing Request, we find none persuasive to show reversible error in the Decision. The ’767 patent describes and claims “a cap assembly” that is characterized by three distinct structures, namely, “a cap, a venturi insert, and a base attached together without welds or separate fasteners to define . . . an air outlet chamber” that is “partitioned from the interior of the receptacle by the base.” Ex. 1001, 15:6–13 (claim 1) (emphasis added); see id. at 3:30–43, 9:45–62 (written description).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“The Petition advances three grounds, each of which is based on obviousness and asserts Benalikhoudja1 as a prior art reference. Pet. 5. We found in the Decision, and Petitioner does not dispute in the Rehearing Request, that each ground “depends on Petitioner’s assertion that Benalikhoudja discloses or suggests ‘an aerosol outlet chamber partitioned 1 We refer to US 2006/0237090 A1, published Oct. 26, 2006 (Ex. 1004). from the interior of the receptacle by the base.’” Dec. 5–6. As we did in the Decision, we refer herein to that feature of the claimed invention as “the aerosol outlet limitation.” Id. at 6. Based on the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determined Petitioner did not show sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that Benalikhoudja discloses the aerosol outlet limitation. Id. at 9–10. Petitioner argues we erred on that point. Req. Reh’g 1–6.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,480,767 - Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00911 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not sufficiently show the asserted combinations taught or suggested the claimed limitations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the 1 Huber et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,414,779 B2, issued August 19, 2008 (Ex. 1008, “Huber”). 2 Everett et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,365,856 B2, issued April 29, 2008 (Ex. 1009, “Everett”). 3 F. Lexer, C.K. Hitzenberger, A.F. Fercher, M. Kulhavy, “Wavelength-tuning interferometry of intraocular distances,” Appl. Optics, vol. 36, pp. 6548–6553 (Sept. 1, 1997) (Ex. 1006, “Lexer”). 4 W. Drexler and J. Fujimoto, eds., Optical Coherence Tomography – Technology and Applications, ISBN 978-3-540-77549-2, Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2008) (Ex. 1010, “Drexler”). decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“added). The Decision did not, however, fault Petitioner in this manner. Rather, in the Decision, we appropriately focused on the crux of Petitioner’s argument; namely that, although Huber does not disclose an output power (which Petitioner converts to the claimed photon flux) within the claimed range, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated by Everett to use Huber’s laser on eyes, and that such use would have motivated the ordinarily skilled artisan to (in Petitioner’s words) “reduce the photon flux of the Huber laser” to achieve the claimed range “or any other ranges needed to prevent tissue damage and optimize signal strength.” Decision 20 (quoting Pet. 42). As we also noted in the Decision, the only support provided in the Petition for these assertions is a blanket citation to nearly a dozen paragraphs (spanning six pages) primarily consisting of background technical discussion from Dr. Brennan’s Declaration. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85, 185). In that technical background, Dr. Brennan purportedly explains how and why “optimal optical power” may be set and selected generally in systems employing lasers. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85. But, as we pointed out in the Decision, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Brennan tied any of this analysis to the prior art of record or otherwise explained the conclusory assertion made in the Petition (and echoed by Dr. Brennan) that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Huber, Everett, and Lexer to apply photon flux within the claimed range for measurement of eyes. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1012 ¶ 185.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“‘output-power is greater than 10 mW,” which Petitioner converted to a photon flux of “a photon flux of 6.6 * 1016 photons per second.”). Both the Petition and the Request are based on a theory of overlapping ranges, but fail to show the factual basis for the application of that theory. The Decision correctly determined that the Petition fails to show that Huber discloses a range of photon flux that overlaps the claimed range.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“added). The Decision did not, however, fault Petitioner in this manner. Rather, in the Decision, we appropriately focused on the crux of Petitioner’s argument; namely that, although Huber does not disclose an output power (which Petitioner converts to the claimed photon flux) within the claimed range, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated by Everett to use Huber’s laser on eyes, and that such use would have motivated the ordinarily skilled artisan to (in Petitioner’s words) “reduce the photon flux of the Huber laser” to achieve the claimed range “or any other ranges needed to prevent tissue damage and optimize signal strength.” Decision 20 (quoting Pet. 42). As we also noted in the Decision, the only support provided in the Petition for these assertions is a blanket citation to nearly a dozen paragraphs (spanning six pages) primarily consisting of background technical discussion from Dr. Brennan’s Declaration. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85, 185). In that technical background, Dr. Brennan purportedly explains how and why “optimal optical power” may be set and selected generally in systems employing lasers. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85. But, as we pointed out in the Decision, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Brennan tied any of this analysis to the prior art of record or otherwise explained the conclusory assertion made in the Petition (and echoed by Dr. Brennan) that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Huber, Everett, and Lexer to apply photon flux within the claimed range for measurement of eyes. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1012 ¶ 185.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,044,164 - Energysource Minerals, LLC v. Terralithium LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 6, 2020 · IPR2019-01601 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution for claims 9–16, finding the petition insufficient on anticipation by Maimoni and Jost and related obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the pH to an adjusted level of between 4.5 and 6.5. All that Dr. Gallup testifies to is that the “[g]iven the pH of the feed brine [i.e., between 5.2 and 6.1 (Table 1) or 5.6 (Table 2). EX 1004, at 9-10], pH values [as claimed] occur as a result of the air oxidation and introduction of calcium hydroxide.” Id. As we stated in the Decision, we do not see how this statement is anything but a “conclusory assertion[ ] backed up by no objective evidence, such as experimental results establishing the adjusted pH of Maimoni’s geothermal brine.” Dec. 24. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded as to error in our conclusion that “Petitioner insufficiently establishes that Maimoni anticipates, expressly or inherently, the claim 9 step of ‘maintaining the pH of the geothermal brine solution at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5.’” (Dec. 26) based on reason (1); that is, Petitioner’s apparent inherency argument made in the Petition, as well as the Gallup Declaration upon which the argument relied, were inadequate (Dec. 21–25).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“[u]nder these circumstances, where Jost raises the possibility of forming iron (III) hydroxide, while raising a doubt that iron (III) hydroxide even exists – we find that Jost does not describe, expressly or inherently, oxidizing to iron (III) hydroxide as claimed. At best, Jost is ambiguous about oxidizing to iron (III) hydroxide. But ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (“Anticipation requires that a single reference ‘describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.’ Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim. See, e.g., W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (refusing to find claims anticipated when the prior art references were ‘unacceptably vague’); see also In re Hughes, 52 CCPA 1355, 345 F.2d 184, 188 (1965); In re Turlay, 49 CCPA 1288, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (1962) (‘It is well established that an anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference.’)”). Because Jost discloses only the possibility of iron (III) hydroxide and no other evidence has been provided to show that Jost nevertheless necessarily oxidizes to iron (III) hydroxide as claimed, based on the information, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the Jost reference anticipates, expressly or inherently, the claim step of “oxidizing the iron (II) salt to iron (III) hydroxide.” “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“an explanation as to how “the Hazen process discussed by Maimoni describes a step of maintaining and controlling the pH of the geothermal brine at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5, as required by Claim 9” (Pet. 44). But “[t]here is no explanation” (Dec. 24). We reproduced ¶ 162 of the Gallup Declaration in the Decision (see Dec. 23–24), which states in full that The step in the Hazen process of sparging the brine with air (Stream 6) in the iron reactor will reduce the pH. The reduction of the pH is offset by the introduction of calcium hydroxide (Stream 5) to the iron reactor. In my opinion, the Hazen process discussed by Maimoni describes a step of maintaining and controlling the pH of the geothermal brine at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5. Given the pH of the feed brine, these pH values occur as a result of the air oxidation and introduction of calcium hydroxide. We did not and still do not see Dr. Gallup providing any meaningful explanation as to why the steps of sparging and the addition of calcium hydroxide per the Hazen process set forth in Maimoni necessarily maintains the pH to an adjusted level of between 4.5 and 6.5. All that Dr. Gallup testifies to is that the “[g]iven the pH of the feed brine [i.e., between 5.2 and 6.1 (Table 1) or 5.6 (Table 2). EX 1004, at 9-10], pH values [as claimed] occur as a result of the air oxidation and introduction of calcium hydroxide.” Id. As we stated in the Decision, we do not see how this statement is anything but a “conclusory assertion[ ] backed up by no objective evidence, such as experimental results establishing the adjusted pH of Maimoni’s geothermal brine.” Dec. 24. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded as to error in our conclusion that “Petitioner insufficiently establishes that Maimoni anticipates, expressly or inherently, the claim 9 step of ‘maintaining the pH of the geothermal brine solution at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5.’” (Dec. 26) based on reason (1); that is, Petitioner’s apparent inherency argument made in the Petition, as well as the Gallup Declaration upon which the argument relied, were inadequate (Dec. 21–25).” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,051,827 - Apotex Inc. / Apotex Corp. v. Celgene CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 30, 2020 · IPR2018-00685 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d) for grounds I and II and for failure to establish printed-publication status for ground III.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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.”” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (Feb. 13, 4 2020) (precedential). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. If the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated the Office erred. Id. In evaluating the Petition and accompanying evidence in light of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we determined that grounds I and II were “based on substantially the same prior art and arguments previously presented to the office,” and that Petitioner had “neither sufficiently pointed out how the Examiner erred, nor provided additional evidence or facts that warrant reconsideration of the Examiner’s decision.” Inst. Dec. 26. Accordingly, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and denied institution of grounds I and II on that basis.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,741,929 - Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 1, 2019 · IPR2018-00686 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Nikon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–5, 7–10, 16, 24, and 30–33 based on § 325(d) and the priority-date analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: 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 1 The Petition, in an apparent typographic error, omits claim 5 from its listing of challenged claims on page 1. 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. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of Ground 1 based on our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 17. Specifically, we determined that the Kaifu reference relied on by Petitioner was considered during prosecution. Id. Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments regarding why its contentions as to Kaifu were not considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“written description. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal brackets omitted) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, the specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed, at the time of filing, the subject matter that he or she has claimed. Id. “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Id. at 1351, 1355. Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed, not to that which is obvious. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that because the open ended term “comprising” was used in the original claim reciting “a” signal, the recitation of “a” signal and “one or more” signals would have the same scope. An indefinite article, such as “a,” in patent parlance encompasses “one or more” when used, as here, in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” Id. Thus, the claim as amended, which removes the open ended preface “comprising” and changes the modifier of “select signals” from “a” to “one or more,” does not change the scope of the claim in that respect. It merely is a different phrasing. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, any description of a system with one signal would necessarily support a claim to one or more signals. Inst. Dec. 28. Additionally, the claim, as amended, does not suggest there is choice between alternatives that would meet this claim. For example, the claim does not require a choice between a first type of signal and a second type of signal. The claim recites “one” signal, which can be optionally accompanied (“or”) by “more” signals.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,728,574 - PTAB · Jul 27, 2018 · IPR2018-00125 · APJ Richard J Smith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its § 325(d) denial of institution for claims 1–12 challenged as obvious over Sofia ’634 and Congiatu.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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., Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The Board did not overlook or misapprehend Petitioner’s arguments; the Board considered them, but was not persuaded by them. We briefly address Petitioner’s contentions below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“teachings that are not present in Sofia ‘634 and are thus materially additive over the evidence that was of record during prosecution.” See Req. Reh’g 2–7. However, Petitioner’s request for rehearing fails to identify where in the Petition those additional teachings of Congiatu were addressed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments regarding Congiatu, that it relied on in the Petition, were expressly noted in the Decision as similar to Petitioner’s arguments regarding Sofia ’634. Dec. 16–17. Dr. Fortunak’s Declaration” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“and overlooked Dr. Fortunak’s expert testimony.” See Req. Reh’g 5–6. To the contrary, the Board considered Dr. Fortunak’s declaration and accorded it appropriate weight. First, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the fact that the Decision pointed out that Dr. Fortunak’s statement regarding unexpected results (Ex. 1002 ¶ 124) was verbatim to Petitioner’s argument (Dec. 16–17) does not mean the Board ignored Dr. Fortunak’s statement. Second, contrary to Petitioner’s contention that the Board did not cite any evidence contradicting Dr. Fortunak’s opinions, the Board cited extensively to the prosecution history – including the Reasons for Allowance – of the ’309” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,633,309 - United Microelectronics Corp. / Umc Group (USA) et al. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 22, 2018 · IPR2017-01513 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the petition’s challenges relied on an incorrect construction of “adjacent.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In response to a request for rehearing, we review a decision whether to institute trial for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Further, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. We deny the request because Petitioner does not establish an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In addition, Rule 42.108(c) does not undercut the statutory mandate that precludes trial institution where, as here, the information presented in a petition and preliminary response fails to make out the threshold showing for review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (a) (authorizing review only upon a showing of “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1” challenged claim). Taken to its natural end, Petitioner’s view of the rule would compel the Board to institute trial whenever a preliminary record includes declarations that reflect differing opinions—which is, of course, an untenable result. Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with Section 314(a), which specifies a condition under which review may be instituted, but does not specify conditions under which review must be instituted. Id.; see Dec. 8–18 (articulating reasons why Petitioner, in this case, is not reasonably likely to prevail at trial with respect to at least one patent claim).” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“something is formed at one point in the process that does not need to remain in the same relative position throughout the fabrication process.” Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–45) (emphasis added). On that basis, Petitioner advanced challenges that depended on a construction of claim 1 that is broad enough to embrace an integrated circuit “in which a claimed feature is present during an intermediate step of the fabrication process but not necessarily in subsequent process steps or the final product.” Dec. 11; see Pet. 20, 23–39 (advancing that proposed construction). The Board rejected that view, observing that, as properly construed, claim 1 is not broad enough to encompass a device, such as the integrated circuit disclosed in Saito,2 in which “a claimed feature is present during an intermediate step of the fabrication process” but “is removed by selective etching in a subsequent process step and, thus, is absent in the integrated circuit ultimately produced by the process.” Dec. 11–12; cf. Pet. 3, 17, 20–21. We declined to adopt Petitioner’s expansive view of claim 1, which would enlarge the scope of the apparatus claim to capture structure present only during an intermediate step of fabrication. Instead, we determined that “the plain terms of claim 1 require that the metal silicide layer and the epitaxial silicon layer simultaneously are located ‘adjacent the shallow junction’ in the specified integrated circuit.” Dec. 12 (emphasis added). On this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner proposed a claim construction that is “narrower” or “a subset” of the construction advanced by Patent Owner in the Preliminary Response. Req. Reh’g 7.” slip op. at 8
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“removed” (Req. Reh’g 10) and that a genuine dispute arises regarding “whether the 100-200nm disclosure in Saito renders obvious” the challenged claims when evaluated under the correct construction of “adjacent”; that is, “close to; laying near” (id. at 11–12) (bridging sentence); but see Dec. 16 (correct construction is “close to; lying near”). Petitioner does not identify where, if at all, those arguments were presented in the Petition. Req. Reh’g 10, 11–12. Petitioner also attempts to recast other arguments in view of the correct claim construction. For example, Petitioner argues that a metal “silicide film remains throughout the process illustrated in” Saito’s Figure 1 and that “a functioning transistor was created as of FIG. 1(c) and processing could stop after this step.” Id. at 10. Those arguments were not presented in the Petition in the context of the correct claim construction. Petitioner identifies no abuse of discretion in the Board’s determination that the Petition did not explain adequately how or why the asserted prior art references disclose or suggest the properly-construed adjacency requirement of claim 1. See Dec. 16–17 (bridging paragraph, articulating reasons for that determination). In that regard, the Petition argued “that the term ‘adjacent’ in claim 1 must be read to ‘mean “directly adjacent” or “in physical contact with” during the formation of each layer,’ and not necessarily in the final structure.” Id. at 11 (quoting Pet. 17, 20– 21) (emphasis added). The request for rehearing represents a post hoc attempt to back away from that construction, recast the arguments and prior art asserted in the Petition, and present a new version of the patentability challenges under the correct claim construction. Compare Req. Reh’g 8–14, with Pet. 23–68. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments, therefore, we reject that endeavor. It would be manifestly unfair to Patent Owner for us to entertain those new arguments at this late juncture. See Req. Reh’g 8–14 (asserting new arguments keyed to the correct claim construction as identified in the institution decision).” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 5,973,372 - PTAB · May 7, 2018 · PGR2017-00039 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Rehearing
The Board dismissed Patent Owner’s rehearing request as moot after granting the parties’ joint motion for adverse judgment and terminating the proceeding.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedNot reached
“our decision instituting a post grant review. Paper 11. On April 16, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Adverse Judgment. Paper 16 (“Joint Motion”). In the Joint Motion, Patent Owner informed the Board that, in the event that we grant the Joint Motion and terminate the proceeding, Patent Owner “considers its request for rehearing to be moot and withdraws its request.” Id. at 1. Concurrently herewith, we issue a Judgment and Final Written Decision that grants the Joint Motion and terminates the proceeding. Accordingly, on this record, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 11) as moot. It is ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 11) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“our decision instituting a post grant review. Paper 11. On April 16, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Adverse Judgment. Paper 16 (“Joint Motion”). In the Joint Motion, Patent Owner informed the Board that, in the event that we grant the Joint Motion and terminate the proceeding, Patent Owner “considers its request for rehearing to be moot and withdraws its request.” Id. at 1. Concurrently herewith, we issue a Judgment and Final Written Decision that grants the Joint Motion and terminates the proceeding. Accordingly, on this record, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 11) as moot.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,463,183
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.