- Facebook, Inc. / Instagram, LLC v. Skky, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 28, 2017 · CBM2016-00091 · APJ Glenn J Perry · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Facebook and Instagram’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying CBM review because the disclaimed claims could not establish eligibility.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“may deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(b). When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs 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.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, 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 4
- Adverse judgmentOther
“when a patent owner files a statutory disclaimer after the filing of the petition but before institution, CBM patent review eligibility can be based on the disclaimed claims. Specifically, Petitioner relies upon limitations of disclaimed claims 6 and 8−11 as supporting its contention that the ’502 patent qualifies for CBM patent review. See Pet. 4–8 (citing claim 6, for example, which recites “charging a fee, to the user”). Patent Owner, however, statutorily disclaimed claims 6 and 8−11, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). See Prelim. Resp. 4; Ex. 2001. In the Decision on Institution, for purposes of establishing CBM patent review eligibility and in accordance with Federal Circuit case law, we treated the ’502 patent as though these claims never existed. Dec. on Inst. 8–10.” slip op. at 7
NonePatents in suitUS 9,037,502 - Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2017 · CBM2016-00021 · APJ Jameson Lee · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“3. Conclusion Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 40
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“to Petitioner Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037. Paper 33. None of these exhibits was relied on by Petitioner in support of the sole ground on the basis of which trial was instituted in this proceeding, i.e., subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or in support of Petitioner’s arguments for establishing the ’667 patent as a covered business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Patent Owner in its Reply to Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s renewed Motion to Exclude asserts that the Board’s Decision on Institution did rely on the Declaration of Mr. Gray and that Mr. Gray’s Declaration does refer to Exhibits 1004, 1005, and 1037. Paper 40, 3. Mr. Gray’s Declaration, however, covers many subjects, and the portions of Mr. Gray’s Declaration cited to in the Decision on Institution do not rely on or refer to Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037. We have not relied on any portion of Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037, in this Final Written Decision. Those exhibits all relate to an alleged ground of unpatentability over prior art that has not been instituted for trial and also were not referred to by Mr. Gray in connection with his testimony regarding either patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or whether the ’667 patent is a covered business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Renewed Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“We are cognizant that a “pay-per-click system” is expressly recited only in claim 1’s preamble, and that a preamble recitation may not be limiting. “Whether a preamble stating the purpose and context of the invention constitutes a limitation of the claimed process is determined on the facts of each case and in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history.” Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572–73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this instance, the recitation of a “pay-per-click system” in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, because it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the subject matter of claim 1. See Symantic Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Catalina Marketing Int’l. v. Coolsavings.Com, 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states: “This invention improves upon existing pay-per-click arrangements . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:62–64. The Specification describes no environment for the disclosed invention other than in a “pay-per-click” system. The body of claim 1 specifically recites a step of “detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration between clicks by said client to said selected website by examining said code and website information.” Id. at 3:12–15. The “fraudulent activity” referred to in the body of the claim depends on the operations of a pay-per-click system to have meaning. For instance, the potentially fraudulent activity related to the duration between clicks is a problem, because the merchant has an obligation to pay for each click in a pay-per-click system. Also in the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states that determining if certain clicks are illegitimate “allows the pay-per-click company to more fairly invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent [overuse].” Id. at 2:1–4. Claim 1 expressly requires the links provided to a client be “associated with a plurality of websites associated with a plurality of merchants.” Id. at 3:2–5. For all of these reasons, we determine that the recitation of “pay-per-click system” in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. We determine, in particular, that the step in the body of claim 1 for detecting fraudulent activity derives its meaning and significance from being implemented in a pay-per-click system.” slip op. at 14
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“above-noted testimony of Mr. Gray, we agree with Petitioner’s articulation of what constitutes an abstract idea to which the claimed invention is directed, i.e., “detecting fraud based on the time between two requests by the same client.” That articulation is reasonably tied to the claims, and not an over-generalization or over-simplification of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,953,667 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 7,953,667 - Duodecad It Services Luxembourg S.à.R.L. / Friendfinder Networks Inc. et al. v. Wag Acquisition, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01035 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution for claims 1–18, finding the petition did not persuasively show Ground 3’s references taught the constant-fill-rate limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construction and construed “playback rate” (as recited in claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 14) as “a rate at which the data is encoded for playback to a user.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Paper 2 (“Pet.”) 12; Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”) 17). We also declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for “at about playback rate” as indefinite as it could represent “any rate” (Pet. 12). Dec. 7. We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction that “at about playback rate” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14, should be construed as “at approximately the rate at which the media will be played out.” Dec. 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. 16–18; Ex. 1001, 3:40–42, 4:33–35, 4:47–50, 5:37–40).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“indefinite, contends, in the alternative, that “the Board erred in giving a special meaning to ‘about’ or ‘approximately’ in the context of the playback rate as being related to variations that may arise as a result of variable encoding. Petitioners submit that ‘about’ should be ‘approximately’ without imparting such special meaning to the term.” Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Duraflame, Inc. v. Hearthmark, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21229, *23 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2013)). We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments that the term “about” in the claim phrase “about playback rate” requires further construction. We note that Petitioner’s rehearing request argument with respect to Chen, Chen FH, Carmel, and ISO-11172 teaching that “the media data elements is sent at a rate that matches the constant fill rate of a server buffer” does not depend on the revised construction of either “playback rate” or the construction of “about” in the claim phrase “about playback rate.” Thus, for purposes of this rehearing decision, we do not further construe “about playback rate”” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 63) in arguing that the Board erred in finding that Chen and the Chen FH did not “‘teach or suggest that the server buffer in Chen fills at a constant rate that matches the rate of data coming out of the buffer’” as recited in challenged claims. Reh’g Req. 7–9 (quoting Dec. 15.). The Petition, however, makes no reference to “the case where the stream buffer holds one frame of data” and argues only that in Normal mode the Chen server buffer empties at about playback rate to avoid overflow and underflow conditions. Pet. 19; see also Pet. 31 (citing claim 42 of Chen). In addition, neither the Petition nor Dr. Polish’s declaration cited therein discusses the case where one frame of data is in the Chen stream buffer and subsequently leaves the stream buffer, i.e., that one and only one frame of data is loaded into the stream buffer. Compare Req. Reh’g 9 with Pet. 19, 31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63. The Board did not misapprehend or overlook arguments that were not presented. In addition, Petitioner’s arguments based on the size of the server buffer in Chen, as presented in the Petition, failed to persuasively show that the server buffer in Chen fills at a constant rate that matches the rate of data coming out of the buffer or that rate into its buffer is constant. Petitioner’s arguments that a one frame buffer “necessarily” shows that one frame is loaded into the Chen buffer is conclusory and not persuasive to the extent it was argued in the Petition.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,185,611 - American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro- Star International Co., Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2017 · IPR2015-01488 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–50 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 14 over Shipman; claims 2–5, 7–13, 15–18, 20–30, 32–42, and 44–50 over Shipman and Harmer; claims 6, 19, 31, and 43 over Shipman, Harmer, and Patel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Decision to Institute, we applied the following claim constructions. Dec. to Inst. 10–12. We determined that “BIOS initialization code” as recited in claims 1, 14, 27, and 39 as “predetermined amount of BIOS initialization code” does not require further construction. Id. at 11. We also determined that “dispatch manager” as recited in claims 1–4, 14–17, 27–29, and 39–41, is construed as a program that handles the locating, loading and executing of task code. Id. at 12. Finally, we adopted the parties’ agreed construction of “system memory” as “random access memory (RAM).” Id. As neither Petitioner’s nor Patent Owner’s arguments persuade us to revise our interpretations of “BIOS initialization code,” “dispatch manager,” or “system memory,” we adopt as final our determinations of the broadest reasonable interpretations of those terms. Dec. to Inst. 10–12.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’189 patent would be “a person having at least a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science or software engineering or a Bachelor of Science degree in a technical field requiring computer science or software engineering courses and at least one year of industry experience in computer science or engineering related to firmware.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 15). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill in the art. Based on the full record, we agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Mr. Perla’s declaration testimony (Ex. 1013 ¶ 56) is contradicted and undermined by his deposition testimony that shows him scrambling and leading counsel “on a wild goose chase” to support his declaration (PO Resp. 3–54 (citing Ex. 2010, 28:7–8, 29:7–23, 32:20–33:6, 33:15–20, 33:21– 34:14; 35:7–36:25, 46:1–12)). Patent Owner argues that Mr. Perla’s testimony should be ignored because he “fabricates an aspect of modularity” in the Harmer reference to combine it with the modularity contemplated in the Shipman reference. PO Resp. 3–5. We disagree, finding that the deposition testimony cited by Patent Owner concerning “portions of BIOS” as contrasted with “BIOS modules” does not support the conclusion that Mr. Perla’s testimony should be disregarded in its entirety or given no weight. Considered in its entirety (Ex. 2010 and Ex. 1013), we find sufficient support and explanation for Mr. Perla’s testimony regarding modularity of Harmer and Shipman. In addition, Patent Owner’s deposition questions are 4 We note that Patent Owner’s citations to the testimony of Mr. Perla (PO Resp. 3–5) do not support Patent Owner’s contentions. For example, the Patent Owner response quotes Mr. Perla’s testimony (PO Resp. 3–4), but the deposition exhibit citations (Ex. 2010, 28:7–8, 28:10–12, 28:13–16), do not contain the quoted language and do not support Patent Owner’s contentions. In the absence of accurate citations to the record, we have considered Mr. Perla’s testimony in its entirety (see Ex. 2010). narrowly drawn and fail to support Patent Owner’s contentions that Mr. Perla fabricated his testimony regarding the modular teachings of the Harmer reference. PO Resp. 3–5 (citing Ex. 2010, 28:7–8, 29:7–23, 32:20– 33:6, 33:15–20, 33:21–34:14; 35:7–36:25, 46:1–12). Accordingly, we do not disregard the testimony of Mr. Perla.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that there is no motivation to combine the Harmer and Shipman references because there is no support for the testimony of Mr. Perla that Harmer contemplates modular BIOS. PO Resp. 3–5, 11–13. As discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Perla’s deposition testimony shows there is no support for his opinion that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Harner and Shipman given that both deal with BIOS modularity because “Harmer’s purported BIOS modularity was fiction.” PO Resp. 11. Considering Mr. Perla’s testimony in its entirety, Mr. Perla’s deposition testimony is consistent with his declaration testimony that Harmer’s teachings of expansion BIOS are similar to the teachings in Shipman relied upon by Petitioner. Compare Ex. 1013 ¶ 56, with Ex. 2010, 30:3–11. We do not find that Mr. Perla’s deposition testimony undermines the testimony regarding what Harmer teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner relies on Harmer to establish that it was known, prior to the time of invention of the ’189 patent, to store BIOS modules in a protected area of a secondary nonvolatile storage device to reduce the cost of the ROM by relocating BIOS components to the mass memory storage of peripheral computer devices. Reply 9–10; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 110–111; Ex. 1003, 4:63–67; Pet. 32–33. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument based solely on the” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,185,189 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,185,189 - PTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01037 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing in both proceedings because Petitioner did not show that Su was publicly accessible by the critical date or that the Board overlooked or misapprehended a petition argument.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner fails to recognize that our Decision was based on Petitioner’s failure to present sufficient evidence of public accessibility. Public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “A 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.”’ Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n., 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference is a printed publication is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations. Id. The party seeking to introduce the reference “should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.” In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“The sole evidence cited in the Petition is a print-out of a record created in 2008 by Theses Canada. Ex. 1013 (“TH-Su”). As we noted in our Decision Denying Institution, TH-Su includes an active PDF link to Su, identifies Su as resident on two microfiches, indicates the publisher is the Ottawa: National Library of Canada [1999], and includes an abstract. Dec. Denying Inst. 7. TH-Su also includes an AMICUS No. (20672380)1, an international standard book number (ISBN 0612312569), a Canadian Number (992099080) and the following information “Copies: NL Stacks – Mic. TJ- 31256.” Id. at 7-8. However, TH-Su is a document created and modified on July 18, 2008, not in 1999. Id. at 7–8. Petitioner failed to tie 3 We agree with Petitioner’s assertion that it did not concede any of the argument set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Req. Reh’g. 6, fn 4. However, our inquiry during the conference of August 4, 2016 concerned facts and evidence. any of these numerical designations in TH-Su to public accessibility prior to 2008. Thus, Petitioner failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that Su was publically accessible in 1999.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,122,141 - PTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01033 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the institution denials because Petitioner did not show that Su was publicly accessible before the patents’ critical dates.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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 reply. Id. For the reasons discussed below, the Request for Rehearing is DENIED.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s failure to present sufficient evidence of public accessibility. Public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “A 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.”’ Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n., 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference is a printed publication is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations. Id. The party seeking to introduce the reference “should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.” In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981).” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,327,011 - Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · IPR2016-00789 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not sufficiently show the claimed token correspondence or GUI and API.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s 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. 4 Wieder, U.S. Patent No. 8,001,612 B1, issued Aug. 16, 2011 (Ex. 1007). 5 Wiser, U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 B1, issued May 7, 2002 (Ex. 1008). 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“a password or e-mail, not just any password or e-mail automatically satisfies the recited membership verification token. To satisfy the recited membership verification token, the password or e-mail must correspond to the digital media, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 12 and 15. See also Inst. Dec. 7 (construing the claim phrase “the request comprising a membership verification token provided by a first user, corresponding to the encrypted digital media” such that the language “corresponding to the encrypted digital media” modifies the membership verification token). This is supported by the specification of the ’555 patent, which teaches that “an identifier for the digital media is stored in a database with another database of a list of associated tokens for cross-reference identification for verification.” Ex. 1001, 8:52–55 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8:19–21 (“Subsequently, the membership verification token is authenticated at step 604. The authentication is performed in connection with a token database.”).” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“a password or e-mail, not just any password or e-mail automatically satisfies the recited membership verification token. To satisfy the recited membership verification token, the password or e-mail must correspond to the digital media, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 12 and 15. See also Inst. Dec. 7 (construing the claim phrase “the request comprising a membership verification token provided by a first user, corresponding to the encrypted digital media” such that the language “corresponding to the encrypted digital media” modifies the membership verification token). This is supported by the specification of the ’555 patent, which teaches that “an identifier for the digital media is stored in a database with another database of a list of associated tokens for cross-reference identification for verification.” Ex. 1001, 8:52–55 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8:19–21 (“Subsequently, the membership verification token is authenticated at step 604. The authentication is performed in connection with a token database.”).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“the admitted prior art” For the asserted grounds based on DeMello, Petitioner relied on either DeMello or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “membership verification token . . . corresponding to the encrypted digital media.” Pet. 17–21, 52. For the asserted grounds based on Pestoni, Petitioner relied on either Pestoni or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “GUI” and “API.” Id. at 33; see id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009, Exhibit D). We denied institution of these asserted grounds because we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding the teachings of DeMello or Pestoni, either alone or in combination with the admitted prior art. slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,402,555 - Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2016-00602 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on the DeMello- and Pestoni-based grounds challenging claim 1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s 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). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“argument for ‘requesting the query data.’” Req. Reh’g 8 (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “[t]he Petition certainly offers reasons to combine with Wieder for the token database . . . , but [the requesting step] doesn’t require combination because it is obvious from Pestoni alone.” Id. at 9. We disagree with Petitioner’s contention. As we noted in our Institution Decision, an obviousness analysis requires “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Inst. Dec. 14 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Even if the recited requesting step “doesn’t require combination” with another patent or printed publication, Petitioner did not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered modifying Pestoni to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. For instance, Petitioner merely asserted, without further explanation, that “it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to implement Pestoni with a request and corresponding reception.” Pet. 49. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness as to the recited requesting step. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,887,308 - American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro-Star International Co., Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01079 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–40 and 44 as obvious over either PC Tools and Gerace or LogoMania, and claims 41–43 and 45 as obvious over either specified combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for petitioner
“We first note that proposed claim 46 recites a “profile,” a term that is broader than a “user profile” and is not specifically defined. In addition, the meaning of the language in proposed claim 46 “wherein the computer system [that displays the image] characterizes the profile under the operating system environment” is unclear. Although the operating system may be a Windows OS, as Patent Owner argues, Patent Owner does not cite to a description concerning what it means for the computer system, i.e., the system that displays the image, to “characterize[s] the profile” or what steps the computer takes to characterize the profile. Id. at 8–9. Instead, Patent Owner argues that a service center provides additional content based on the user system and profile. Id. at 9. That language, however, is not recited in proposed claim 46. We deny the Motion to Amend on this basis as well.” slip op. at 24
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“It was not Petitioner’s responsibility to monitor whether Patent Owner moved for Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. However, we also are troubled by Petitioner’s failure to seek a conference with the Board at the time of the deposition. Although Petitioner argues it could not have moved to quash the deposition because the notice was signed by lead counsel, Christopher Frerking (Reply to Opp. To Mot to Exclude 4), it appears that Petitioner’s counsel was aware that Mr. Summerfield would conduct the cross examination at least several days, and possibly several weeks, before the deposition took place. Hr’g Tr. 47, 49. Petitioner does not allege any prejudice as a result of Mr. Summerfield conducting the cross examination or argue that Mr. Summerfield behaved improperly during the deposition. Mot. To Exclude 4. Instead, Petitioner contends we should exclude the evidence as a matter of policy to demonstrate that our rules concerning pro hac vice admission must be taken seriously and to discourage others from acting in a similar manner, particularly in the case of deposition testimony and arguments that become part of the trial record. Id. at 4–6.8 Petitioner contends that allowing the deposition to take place did not cure its objection to the deposition. Reply to Opp. To Mot. To Exclude. 1–2. Dr. Kaliski’s deposition took place on January 8, 2016. Petitioner could have opposed Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission until January 16, 2016. However, notwithstanding Mr. Summerfield’s conduct, to which Petitioner objected, Petitioner did not oppose Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. Had Petitioner opposed Mr. Summerfield’s admission on the basis that he conducted the deposition without proper authorization, the issue could have been addressed earlier in the proceeding and another deposition scheduled, if it was determined that Mr. Summerfield would not be admitted and the deposition transcript would not be entered. Instead, Petitioner elected to delay the matter until the last possible date for filing a Motion to Exclude. Thus, even if Petitioner’s objection was not cured when Petitioner permitted the deposition to proceed without contacting the Board, Petitioner’s subsequent failure to oppose Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission pro hac vice implies at least some degree of consent. The parties conduct in this case does not warrant excluding Dr. Kaliski’s deposition transcript from evidence. We do not condone Patent Owner’s unreasonable delay in seeking pro hac vice admission of Mr. Summerfield, and under other circumstances our ruling might be different. However, in this case, the absence of prejudice and Petitioner’s failure to” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,373,498 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,373,498 - Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · IPR2016-00600 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on the DeMello-based anticipation and obviousness grounds because the petition did not sufficiently show the claimed verification token or reason to modify DeMello.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s 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). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent 3 Wiser, U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 B1, issued May 7, 2002 (Ex. 1008). 4 Cooper, U.S. Publ’n No. US 2009/0037388 A1, published Feb. 5, 2009 (Ex. 1009). Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the asserted grounds based on DeMello, Petitioner relied on either DeMello or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “verification token . . . corresponding to the digital content.” Pet. 17–21, 52. We denied institution of these asserted grounds because we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding the teachings of DeMello, either alone or in combination with the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“noted in our Institution Decision, an obviousness analysis requires “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Inst. Dec. 12. With respect to claim elements [C], [D], and [G], Petitioner did not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered modifying DeMello to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. at 13; see also Req. Reh’g 8 (“A claim can be rejected as obvious over a single reference by identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) to modify the single reference to fall within the scope of the claim.”). For example, with respect to claim element [D], Petitioner merely asserts that “DeMello describes a browser, which clearly implies or suggests a GUI.” Req. Reh’g 8; see also id. at 12 (“one of skill in the art, analyzing the ‘browser’ in DeMello, would understand that these browsers obviously have a GUI”); Pet. 23 (“it is obvious that the browser of the reader mentioned in DeMello includes a GUI, since browsers provide a GUI”). We are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over DeMello alone as to claim element [D]. Similarly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over DeMello alone as to claim elements [C] and [G]. See Req. Reh’g 10–11; Pet. 20–21, 26–28.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“DeMello, Petitioner contends that we “overlooked the Petition’s argument that the claims are obvious in view of DeMello alone, without any of the additional, admitted prior art.” Req. Reh’g 7 (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “the admitted prior art was added, as background information,” and the Petition showed that claim elements [C], [D], and [G] are obvious over DeMello alone. Id. at 8, 10, 12. This is a new argument, which does not address what was overlooked or misapprehended in our Decision, and is not appropriate in a request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For instance, the heading at page 15 of the Petition reads “Ground 1: Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMello (EX1006) in view of the admitted prior art” (emphasis omitted). None of the other headings in the Petition alleges that any of the claims are unpatentable as obvious over DeMello alone. Nor has Petitioner directed us to any portion of the Petition presenting such argument.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,533,860
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.