- Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01271 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–21 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy taught limitation [1B].
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“variable data database’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 94; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 68, 70). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties based on the SO-class identified for the form would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’342 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:48– 52). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’342 patent. In column 17, lines 48–52, the ’342 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms, and variations of the data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:48–52. While this portion of the ’342 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe linking or mapping variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 75 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’342 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1B]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1B] of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 10,262,342 - Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy teaches limitation [1C] of claims 1–26.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“[m]issing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a ‘plurality of computer-readable field identifiers’ are mapped ‘to one another’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69, 71). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’378 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:42–46). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers (including parameter names) from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because the field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class. Id. We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’378 patent. In column 17, lines 42–46, the ’378 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms and variations of these data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:42–46. While this portion of the ’378 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe any linking or mapping of variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 76 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’378 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1C]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1C] of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Finally, with regard to the Reply and Sur-Reply submitted by the parties (Req. 9), we note that our Decision on Institution reviewed the parties’ discussion of claim construction, but ultimately determined that “[b]ased on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision.” Dec. 11. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner that we misconstrued the mapping limitation where we did not find it necessary to construe any claim term for the purposes of our institution decision because we determined the Petition deficient for failing to meet our threshold requirements as discussed above and in detail in the Decision on Institution. See Req. 1–11.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,633,378 - PTAB · Jun 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01437 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied SharkNinja’s rehearing request and left institution denied because the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the Xia-Park obviousness challenge.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“articulated why it would have been obvious to modify the recovery tank of Xia’s non-wet-filter vacuum to include a strainer basket like that shown in Park’s wet-filter water vacuum. Dec. 13.2 Based on review of the disclosure of Park, the Decision found that the strainer was used to help the wet-filter mechanism work. Id. at 8–10. The Decision noted that the strainer served its purpose at two times—during recirculation of the filtering water when in use and during draining of the filtering water when finished. Id. Thus, the Decision found that the strainer’s purpose was to solve problems unique to wet-filter vacuums. Id. at 11. The Decision found insufficient evidentiary support for Petitioner’s assertion that Park suggested its strainer would be useful in devices like Xia that did not have wet filters. Id. The Decision also found insufficient evidentiary support for Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would nevertheless recognize that Park’s strainer could be useful in devices that did not have wet filters. Id. at 12–13. Accordingly, the Decision determined that the Petition did not meet the burden for institution. Id. at 13.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). However, we disagree that Petitioner has established the factual underpinnings required to support such a theory. Petitioner’s Request directs us to no evidence the Decision missed on this topic. As noted in the Decision, the expert testimony relies on Park or on other devices in which the strainer is used to prevent clogging of recirculation devices. Dec. 13, n.3. These devices teach no more than Park—strainers used to permit recirculation systems to operate without clogging. See id. The Petition did not identify sufficient evidence that would support a finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, before the date of invention, the obviousness of using Park’s strainer in Xia, a device that operates in a different way than Park. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (noting a precondition of the application-of-a-known-technique rationale is that the technique used to improve a device improves the device “in the same way.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“sense” reason to combine the references, premised on testimony alleging that debris dumped from a wet vacuum tank could clog the drain. Req. Reh’g. 11–12. Petitioner does not direct our attention to where this theory of unpatentability was raised; arguments not raised cannot have been overlooked. In any event, the expert testimony cited is not entitled to persuasive weight because it is not supported by sufficient evidence or technical reasoning. Xerox Corp. et al v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). As explained in the Decision, Petitioner points to no evidence that there was a known problem of drain clogs when disposing of waste water from devices like Xia, nor does Petitioner’s expert explain the reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have nevertheless recognized the problem and its solution. Dec. 12 (“Petitioner has not explained why it would have been obvious to modify Xia by borrowing features that are meant to solve problems unique to water-filter vacuum cleaners”), 13 n.3 (finding that Petitioner’s expert “does not provide an explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to add a recirculation filter to devices that do not use recirculation”). Unless there is credible evidence showing otherwise, any perceived obviousness today is only apparent in hindsight. See, e.g., Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Prior knowledge in the field of the invention must be supported by tangible teachings of reference materials, and the suggestion to combine references must not be derived by hindsight from knowledge of the invention itself.”); see also Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“an invention can often be the recognition of a problem itself”); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (holding that a proper obviousness analysis “precludes consideration of whether the invention would have been obvious . . . after learning all about the invention”).” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,185,205 - Meridian Wildlife Services, LLC v. Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01340 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–8 because the petitioner did not show the Board misapprehended or overlooked its obviousness arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“C. STANDARD FOR REHEARING The party filing a request for rehearing of a decision whether to institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c)).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In our decision on institution (Paper 9, “Dec.” or “Decision”), we determined that Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the Challenged Claims and denied institution of inter partes review. Petitioner filed a timely Request for Rehearing in which it asks that we institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims. Paper 10, 1 (“Reh’g Req.” or “Request”). For the reasons that follow, we deny Petitioner’s Request.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“to “then place nets where the birds are observed flying in the building.” Reh’g Req. 4 (citing Pet. 19; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 45; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71, 72, 75). Brugh does not “instruct” a POSA to perform either of these actions. Rather, Brugh provides a method comprising, in relevant part, “a) determining the species of flying vertebrate inside the building; b) selecting bird netting; . . . [and] d) positioning the netting for capture based on the species of flying vertebrate and their flight characteristics utilizing the height adjustable poles to raise the netting.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8–10, 15 (emphasis added). There is no “instruction” that the location of the netting is adjusted based on the flight pattern; rather, the height is adjusted. Brugh further provides for “determin[ing] how [the flying vertebrate] flies, e.g., a bat flies in a different pattern than a sparrow” and using the flight pattern “to place the netting in relationship to the position of the flying vertebrate.” Id. ¶ 45. There is no “instruction” that the determining of the flight pattern must be by observing the flying vertebrate (as opposed to researching the flight pattern of the species of the flying vertebrate) or that the netting is placed in relationship to and observed or expected position. b) “The Board’s analysis ignores common sense.” Reh’g Req. 4. Petitioner contends that the Board ignored common sense, as “at some point a POSA necessarily would have observed some species of bird flying near some perimeter walls within some building.” Reh’g Req. 4; see also id. at 6 (“It was common sense that a POSA would eventually observe a bird near a perimeter wall and place Brugh’s capture device accordingly.”), 7 (“[T]he Board . . . substitutes a rigid review of the prior art’s disclosure for common sense. . . .”)). This argument is unavailing. “[W]hile ‘common sense’ can be invoked, even potentially to supply a limitation missing from the prior art, it must still be supported by evidence and a reasoned explanation.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As explained above, Petitioner’s argument discounts the inventor’s discovery, in which he spent “countless hours” before discovering that birds fly along the perimeter wall of a building’s interior. Ex. 2001 ¶ 16. Further, as discussed above, Brugh does not instruct nor teach a POSA to observe flight patterns and determine or adjust the locations of the nets accordingly. We are not persuaded that the inventor’s discovery was merely “common sense,” and if it was, Petitioner should have submitted sufficient evidence to support such a finding. See Arendi, 832 F.3d at 1363. As explained in our Decision, Petitioner did not. See, e.g., Dec. 32 (“Petitioner provides insufficient evidence that bats or other flying animals are likely to fly ‘at or proximate to a perimeter wall and at or near the ceiling’ such that a POSA would find it obvious to place a net at or proximate to the perimeter of a wall within a building”). A request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) is not an opportunity for Petitioner to simply reargue issues we previously addressed.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Owner’s expert, Mr. Tolley, is the inventor of the ’683 patent. We considered this fact but, nevertheless, found Mr. Tolley’s testimony more persuasive than Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony. We considered the provided evidence of Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration and the support thereof and found insufficient evidentiary support for why a POSA would place at least one net at or proximate to the perimeters and at or near the ceiling of the structure. Dec. 32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71, 72). Id. at 33. As such, Mr. Chamberlain’s testimony is entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and holding that a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations . . . may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quotation omitted); see also Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to prove prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”). Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony that at least one net would reduce the flying area was not supported by any evidence. Dec. 34. As such, Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony was afforded little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,064,683 - Meridian Wildlife Services, LLC v. Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01254 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended or overlooked its obviousness arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“C. STANDARD FOR REHEARING The party filing a request for rehearing of a decision whether to institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c)).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenInstitution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s argument does not give enough credit to the inventor’s discovery. Mr. Tolley, the inventor, testified that he “spent countless hours monitoring bird flights and patterns within Walmart’s facilities and other indoor structures, focusing not only on where birds typically roosted in the facilities, but also where and how they flew within the enclosures . . . and experimenting with various placements of nets based on [his] observations.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 16. We do not find Petitioner’s citation to the inventor’s testimony, in which the inventor testifies to having “spent countless hours” working on his discovery, to support Petitioner’s argument that the inventor’s discovery would have been obvious based on Brugh’s “instruct[ions to] a POSA to observe the ‘flight patterns’ of these birds” and to “place nets where the birds are observed flying in the building.” Reh’g Req. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 45; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 32, 72, 75). Brugh does not “instruct” a POSA to perform either of these actions. Rather, Brugh provides a method comprising, in relevant part, “a) determining the species of flying vertebrate inside the building; b) selecting bird netting; . . . [and] d) positioning the netting for capture based on the species of flying vertebrate and their flight characteristics utilizing the height adjustable poles to raise the netting.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8–10, 15 (emphasis added). There is no “instruction” that the location of the netting is adjusted based on the flight pattern; rather, the height is adjusted. Brugh further provides for “determin[ing] how [the flying vertebrate] flies, e.g., a bat flies in a different pattern than a sparrow” and using the flight pattern “to place the netting in relationship to the position of the flying vertebrate.” Id. ¶ 45. There is no “instruction” that the determining of the flight pattern must be by observing the flying vertebrate (as opposed to researching the flight pattern of the species of the flying vertebrate) or that the netting is placed in relationship to an observed or expected position.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“been obvious to place at least one net ‘along a perimeter wall . . . in response to observing flight patterns in those locations’ is premised on the alleged fact” that bats and other animals tend to roost in protected locations. Dec. 36 (citing Pet. 18). We then addressed Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration and the support thereof and found insufficient support for his testimony that birds would fly or roost “in or along the perimeter of a wall within a building or structure.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 32, 33; Ex. 1018, 81, 85.) As such, Mr. Chamberlain’s testimony is entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and holding that a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations . . . may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quotation omitted); see also Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to prove prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The first reason was not written as observing flight patterns or, alternatively, expecting flight patterns, but as one reason resulting from “observing flight patterns,” premised on the tendency of birds to roost in a protected, expected location, such as, ostensibly, along the inside perimeter wall of a building. The second reason was that the placement of the nets along a perimeter wall and in another location would shrink the bird’s flying area and thus improve capture. The third reason was, ostensibly, that having more nets, i.e., increased net density, would increase the capture rate. The Decision addressed the first argument regarding observing flight patterns at pages 36–37, the second argument at pages 37–38, and the third argument at pages 38–39.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,729,108 - Meridian Wildlife Services LLC v. Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01253 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Meridian’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c)).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We disagree with Petitioner. The Petition did not cite sufficient evidence to support a finding that a bird would have flown along the interior perimeter of an interior wall. See, e.g., Dec. 19 (“Petitioner provides no evidence that bats or other flying animals are likely to fly or roost along the inner perimeter of a structure such that a POSITA would have found it obvious to place a net along the perimeter of a wall within a building.”). Petitioner’s attempt to cite the inventor’s (Mr. Tolley’s) expert testimony is equally unavailing. See Reh’g Req. 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Tolley’s testimony supports Petitioner’s obviousness challenge.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s fourth sub-argument is not persuasive. As explained in our Decision, Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony that birds would fly along the inner perimeter of a building is not supported by evidence. Dec. 18–19. As such, his testimony is entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and holding that a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quotation omitted); see also Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to provide prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree with Petitioner. The Petition did not cite sufficient evidence to support a finding that a bird would have flown along the interior perimeter of an interior wall. See, e.g., Dec. 19 (“Petitioner provides no evidence that bats or other flying animals are likely to fly or roost along the inner perimeter of a structure such that a POSITA would have found it obvious to place a net along the perimeter of a wall within a building.”). Petitioner’s attempt to cite the inventor’s (Mr. Tolley’s) expert testimony is equally unavailing. See Reh’g Req. 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Tolley’s testimony supports Petitioner’s obviousness challenge.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,251,374 - Ykk Corporation v. 3M Innovative Properties Co.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 10, 2022 · IPR2020-00699 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claim 12 not shown unpatentable under Grounds 8 and 9 because the petition lacked evidence tying the claimed shear strength to the required loop basis weight.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARDS 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 specifically 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. A request for rehearing, therefore, 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. See, e.g., Presidio Components, Inc.v. AVX Corporation, IPR2015-01332, Paper 21, 4 (PTAB Feb. 21, 2016) (“Patent Owner’s arguments in this regard amount to a mere disagreement with our analysis or conclusion. But mere disagreement with our analysis or conclusion is not a sufficient basis for rehearing. It is not an abuse of discretion to provide analysis or conclusion with which Patent Owner disagrees.”)” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Id. at 9. As to Petitioner’s first and second arguments, we specifically addressed Petitioner’s argument that the proposed combination of Petersen-1 and Busam would meet the shear strength limitation of claim 12. Dec. 69– 73. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, we agreed with Patent Owner’s position. As to Petitioner’s third argument, that we overlooked Busam’s disclosure of an overlapping loop basis weight range, that disclosure was never in dispute. Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner attempted to shift the focus of the Board to the unrelated issue of whether Busam explicitly discloses an anticipating example.” Req. Reh. 11. Petitioner seems to be implying that we applied an anticipation standard to its obviousness arguments, but we did not. Instead, our decision was based 6 on a lack of record evidence of obviousness. See, e.g., Dec. 72–73 (“Petitioner does not point us to any evidence that Busam’s female loop material is capable of engaging with a male fastening portion with a shear strength that was ‘reported to be greater than 500 grammes’ and has ‘a fiber basis weight in a range from 20 grams per square meter to 30 grams per square meter,’ as claim 12 requires.”). We also agreed with Patent Owner that the Petitioner had impermissibly relied on new obviousness theories in its Reply that were not presented in the Petitioner. Dec. 73 (“Petitioner does not explain why the arguments made in its Reply relating to claim 12 could not have been presented in the first instance in the Petition or how the arguments in the Reply are responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments in the Patent Owner Response”).” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Id. at 9. As to Petitioner’s first and second arguments, we specifically addressed Petitioner’s argument that the proposed combination of Petersen-1 and Busam would meet the shear strength limitation of claim 12. Dec. 69– 73. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, we agreed with Patent Owner’s position. As to Petitioner’s third argument, that we overlooked Busam’s disclosure of an overlapping loop basis weight range, that disclosure was never in dispute. Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner attempted to shift the focus of the Board to the unrelated issue of whether Busam explicitly discloses an anticipating example.” Req. Reh. 11. Petitioner seems to be implying that we applied an anticipation standard to its obviousness arguments, but we did not. Instead, our decision was based 6 on a lack of record evidence of obviousness. See, e.g., Dec. 72–73 (“Petitioner does not point us to any evidence that Busam’s female loop material is capable of engaging with a male fastening portion with a shear strength that was ‘reported to be greater than 500 grammes’ and has ‘a fiber basis weight in a range from 20 grams per square meter to 30 grams per square meter,’ as claim 12 requires.”). We also agreed with Patent Owner that the Petitioner had impermissibly relied on new obviousness theories in its Reply that were not presented in the Petitioner. Dec. 73 (“Petitioner does not explain why the arguments made in its Reply relating to claim 12 could not have been presented in the first instance in the Petition or how the arguments in the Reply are responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments in the Patent Owner Response”).” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,165,833 - Platform Science, Inc. v. XRS CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00325 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 were unpatentable as obvious.
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. When rehearing a decision on a” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not offered persuasive evidence of any suggestion in the prior art that Nehowig’s onboard computer may be used with multiple different engine control modules that communicate data in different languages. Nor has Petitioner offered persuasive evidence of any suggestion in Nehowig that its engine control module uses more than one language. Contrarily, Nehowig suggests that the onboard computer and engine control module are vehicle specific without an indication that either needs to be adaptable for use in multiple different vehicles. . . . Additionally, regardless of whether Nehowig’s ECM uses one or multiple communication protocols, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that it would have been obvious to modify Nehowig’s OBC 204 to meet limitation 1A.1. Fedorchuk discloses a device configured for connecting to and communicating with a diagnostic communication port of any of a variety of vehicles using any of a number of different possible protocols, enabled by interface device 10’s ability to detect the different possible protocols. . . . Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that Nehowig’s OBC 204 would be connected to any ECM without OBC 204 and the ECM already configured to communicate specifically with one another using one more predesignated protocols. . . . Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that Nehowig’s OBC 204 would not already have dedicated provisions for communicating with the ECM in the specific protocol(s) the ECM uses. Nehowig clearly discloses that OBC 204 already can communicate with Nehowig’s ECM, apparently using whatever protocol(s) the ECM uses. [Ex. 1005] ¶ 23. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently a reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Nehowig’s OBC 204 to allow it to communicate with the ECM.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“misapprehended that the Petition identified a particular proposed combination. We acknowledged Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Dec. 25–26 (“Petitioner then describes a scenario, argued ‘[t]o achieve this goal [of not having the official enter the vehicle],’ where the official ‘will provide a cable to the driver to plug into the EOBR’ . . . . Based on this, Petitioner concludes ‘[t]herefore, the combined system of Nehowig and Fedorchuk implementing the DOT regulations discloses transferring the hours of service information from the OBC to a safety assurance officer’s computer via a data cable.’”). And, even had we overlooked or misapprehended it, the outcome would not change. Again, the basis for the Decision is that Petitioner failed to explain adequately and persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrange the data flow in this manner. Dec. 27. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of any error in our Decision that the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness of limitation 1B.1. See Dec. 27–28. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in not instituting an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’575 patent.” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,255,575 - Platform Science, Inc. v. XRS CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2021 · IPR2021-00323 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claims 1–24, finding no abuse of discretion in its conclusion that the Petition inadequately explained the proposed data flow.
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).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Dec. 13. We determined that “Petitioner does not explain adequately and persuasively why, in such circumstances—where the portable unit could directly transmit the report to the inspector—a person of ordinary skill in the art would see a reason to configure the system in a seemingly awkward way where the report is sent to the onboard system and then sent to the inspector.” Id. at 14.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,626,568 - FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Onesubsea IP UK LimitedRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 13, 2021 · IPR2019-00935 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left in place its determination that claims 1–15 are unpatentable under the listed § 103 grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Therefore, Patent Owner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“weighed the testimony of Mr. Voss. In our Decision, we considered the testimony of Mr. Voss, but we were not persuaded that the testimony outweighs Petitioner’s evidence supporting the proposed modification. In particular, we weighed the evidence of both parties to determine whether Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a skilled artisan would have known and had reason to place seals above the transition point as proposed by Petitioner. We determined that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that it was known to place seals above a transition point in order to provide an isolated flow path. Dec. 50. We also credited the testimony of Mr. Parks over the testimony of Mr. Voss and found that implementation of the modifications proposed by Petitioner would have been within the basic level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 60. We considered and rejected Mr. Voss’s assertion that Petitioner’s proposed modification would place seals on uneven surfaces and on shoulder surfaces that are an improper location for a seal, and would locate seals at different diameters. Dec. 60 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 148–150).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“that the pipes and valves taught by Reimert that correspond, without alteration, to the recited “isolated path” does not actually teach an “isolated path” unless Reimert expressly states which valves are open or closed to make an “isolated path” through the subsea tree. Id. According to Patent Owner “‘where an apparatus need[s] to be altered in order to be “configured” as claimed and there was no evidence of such alteration,’ it does not anticipate or render obvious those claims.” Reh’g Req. 8 (quoting ParkerVision, 903 F.3d at 1361–62). Patent Owner’s assertion that whether a valve is opened or closed is an “alteration” of the apparatus is not persuasive. See, e.g., Fantasy Sports Properties, Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc., 287 F.3d 1108, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating that “although a user must activate the [valves] by selecting [particular valves], the user is only activating [valves] that are already present”). Patent Owner further argues that “as explained by Mr. Voss, Reimert specifically articulates how the completion system is intended to operate and provides specific instructions for opening and closing the valves of the system.” Id. at 10. Claims 1 and 9, the only independent claims challenged, are directed to “a system,” not a method. Ex. 1001, 6:40–65, 7:27–49. As explained in the Decision, “Patent Owner’s arguments are improperly premised on how Patent Owner contends Reimert was intended to be operated, depending on the circumstances, based on how Reimert teaches ‘specific instructions for opening/closing valves.’” Dec. 74–75. Further, we explained in the Decision as follows: Patent Owner then concedes that there are “alternative flow paths,” but argues, based on closing certain valves and opening others, that “even when annulus fluid is permitted to flow into the tubing hanger, the annulus fluid is not permitted to flow into the tree.” Id. at 64–65 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:47–49). Patent Owner proceeds to explain how Reimert would be operated during “typical operation” and how valves would be operated “during workover mode,” “not when a tree is attached.” Whether Reimert teaches, as an apparatus, a system configured to allow annulus fluid to flow through the tree simply does not turn on whether a valve taught by Reimert is opened or closed by an operator. Petitioner persuasively shows that “Reimert’s configuration shown in FIG. 4 provides a fluid flow path through the tubing spool, tubing hanger, and into the tree (e.g., via the plenum) that is in communication with ‘annular region 56.’” Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶ 61). Dec. 75. For these reasons, Patent Owner fails to show that we misapprehended the evidence presented and, as a result, erred in determining that the alternative production flow passage of Reimert is an annulus flow passage through the subsea tree, as shown by a preponderance of the evidence by Petitioner.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments that were not made previously, and Patent Owner fails to identify where the constitutional arguments it now presents were previously raised. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We issued the Decision in this case on October 14, 2020, nearly a year after the Federal Circuit issued Arthrex on October 31, 2019. The Federal Circuit issued a mandate in Arthrex on April 6, 2020. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140, Dkt. No. 119 (Fed. Cir. April 6, 2020). Thus, Patent Owner had notice of Arthrex prior to the Final Written Decision. Indeed, Patent Owner submitted a sur-reply (Paper 26, filed May 15, 2020) and conducted oral arguments on June 29, 2020 (see Paper 42) without presenting any Appointments Clause argument. The Federal Circuit has rejected similar Appointments Clause challenges on the ground that the Board judges were deemed constitutionally appointed as of the date that the Federal Circuit issued its precedential decision in Arthrex. Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc., 957 F.3d 1342, 1343 (Fed. Cri. 2020); see also Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 953 F.3d 760, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Moore, J., concurring in denial of rehearing) (“Because the APJs were constitutionally appointed as of the implementation of the severance, inter partes review decisions going forward were no longer rendered by unconstitutional panels.”). Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s request that this case be dismissed.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,945,202
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.