- PTAB · Mar 4, 2021 · CBM2018-00040 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s second rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the patent’s CBM review eligibility was not subject to judicial review.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing of our denial of institution in this proceeding in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 939 F.3d 1301, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Paper 19. We also authorized Patent Owner to file an opposition to Petitioner’s second request for rehearing. Paper 20. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari, vacated the Federal Circuit’s first opinion in the SIPCO case, and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP,” 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020). On remand, the Federal Circuit determined that the issue of whether a patent qualifies for CBM review is not subject to judicial review. SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 980 F.3d 865, 870 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Accordingly, because the circumstances that warranted further reconsideration of our denial of institution no longer hold true, we hereby decline to consider the second request for rehearing. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s second request for rehearing is denied. Our original decision to deny institution based on lack of CBM review eligibility therefore stands.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,758,370 - Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 24, 2019 · IPR2016-01201 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving intact the finding that the challenged claims were not shown obvious over the asserted Chu and Chen combinations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“At the outset, we note that in a request for rehearing we do not review the merits of the Final Written Decision de novo. Instead, we consider whether Petitioner has met its burden of showing that a matter has been misapprehended or overlooked in the Final Written Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”). We conclude that Petitioner has not met this burden in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“view of Chu ’684. See Reh’g Opp’n 7–10 (relying on its declarant to argue that Chu ’684 does not operate as asserted by Petitioner, undermining Petitioner’s justification for the combination); PO Resp. 70 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 66). Petitioner contends that Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony did not address the asserted combination and therefore provided no need for a reply declaration. Reh’g Reply 7–8. We do not agree with Petitioner’s position, for the reasons stated above. Petitioner does not raise any basis on which we should discount the panel’s reliance on Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony regarding the reason to combine.7 We conclude that the panel did not misapprehend Chu ’684’s operation when it concluded that the Petition failed to show Chu ’684 is deficient and ripe for improvement. Instead, it resolved a factual dispute in Patent Owner’s favor based on record evidence.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“evidence that, in Chu ’684, users would dial according to the dialing conventions of their geographic area. Reh’g Opp’n 8 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 66). Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Mangione-Smith, testified that “in Chu ’684, the users would dial PSTN ‘public numbers’ based on the location of the customer premises.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 2). Figure 2 of Chu ’684 supports Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony, in that Figure 2 of Chu ’684 illustrates customer premises 105 (which includes IP phones) as connected to a service provider central office 205. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 2; Reh’g Opp’n 9 (contrasting Petitioner’s assertion” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,542,815 - Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 24, 2019 · IPR2016-01198 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving intact the finding that challenged claims of the ’005 and ’815 patents were not shown obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“At the outset, we note that in a request for rehearing we do not review the merits of the Final Written Decision de novo. Instead, we consider whether Petitioner has met its burden of showing that a matter has been misapprehended or overlooked in the Final Written Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”). We conclude that Petitioner has not met this burden in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“view of Chu ’684. See Reh’g Opp’n 7–10 (relying on its declarant to argue that Chu ’684 does not operate as asserted by Petitioner, undermining Petitioner’s justification for the combination); PO Resp. 70 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 66). Petitioner contends that Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony did not address the asserted combination and therefore provided no need for a reply declaration. Reh’g Reply 7–8. We do not agree with Petitioner’s position, for the reasons stated above. Petitioner does not raise any basis on which we should discount the panel’s reliance on Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony regarding the reason to combine.7 We conclude that the panel did not misapprehend Chu ’684’s operation when it concluded that the Petition failed to show Chu ’684 is deficient and ripe for improvement. Instead, it resolved a factual dispute in Patent Owner’s favor based on record evidence.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“view of Chu ’684. See Reh’g Opp’n 7–10 (relying on its declarant to argue that Chu ’684 does not operate as asserted by Petitioner, undermining Petitioner’s justification for the combination); PO Resp. 70 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 66). Petitioner contends that Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony did not address the asserted combination and therefore provided no need for a reply declaration. Reh’g Reply 7–8. We do not agree with Petitioner’s position, for the reasons stated above. Petitioner does not raise any basis on which we should discount the panel’s reliance on Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony regarding the reason to combine.7 We conclude that the panel did not misapprehend Chu ’684’s operation when it concluded that the Petition failed to show Chu ’684 is deficient and ripe for improvement. Instead, it resolved a factual dispute in Patent Owner’s favor based on record evidence.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“testimony by Dr. Mangione-Smith—when rejecting Petitioner’s view of the prior art and reason for the combination. See FWD 19 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 65–67); Reh’g Opp’n 6. Thus, when the panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown that Chu ’684’s method would apply to a number reformatted by the secondary references (see FWD 22–23), it relied on record evidence supporting its conclusion. We determine that the panel did not misapprehend the nature of the proposed combination; rather, based on the record, it resolved a factual dispute and concluded that Petitioner failed to show the proposed combination would operate as asserted.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,179,005 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01490 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended “calibration cycle” or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 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 Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). III.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“calibration cycle.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 11:66–67 (emphasis added). We found that how the calibration cycle is referred to in this limitation (i.e., signal includes it) underscores that the calibration cycle is a feature of the calibration RF signal itself. Dec. 15–16. Rather than addressing this claim 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,916 B1 (issued Sept. 6, 2005) (Ex. 1003, “Warner”). 2 We do not address further Warner’s teachings because Petitioner’s arguments are predicated on our having misapprehended the meaning of “calibration cycle,” which we did not. In an inter partes review, the petitioner has the burden to show why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(citation omitted).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“signal includes a calibration cycle.” Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:5 (claim 1), 12:22– 54 (claim 7), 13:18–49 (claim 16), 13:63–14:30 (claim 22), 14:65–15:32 (claim 32), 15:46–62 (claim 38), 16:12–44 (claim 44), 17:8–37 (claim 53), 17:52–18:19 (claim 59), 18:52–19:18 (claim 69) (emphasis added). In denying the Petition, we found that Petitioner did not establish that the prior art disclosed or rendered obvious this limitation. Dec. 8–19. More specifically, we found that the calibration cycle relates to a feature of the calibration radio frequency (“RF”) signal (i.e., the signal includes), rather than simply requiring having a calibration process occur, as Petitioner submitted. Id. at 15–19. Our reasoning underlying this finding related to (A) the language of the limitation, (B) the language of dependent claims, and (C) the ’313 Patent’s Specification. Id.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,346,313 - Black Swamp IP, LLC v. Virnetx Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 24, 2017 · IPR2016-00957 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied VirnetX’s rehearing request, leaving claims 27 and 51 unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“path to address the claimed ‘first location’” and relies on In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to support Patent Owner’s implied contention that the Final Decision may not address new arguments raised by Patent Owner in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and/or Patent Owner’s Response. Req. Reh’g. 6. We disagree. In the present matter and in accordance with Magnum Oil, the ultimate burden of proof remained with Petitioner and was never shifted to Patent Owner at any time during the proceedings and, as discussed above, at no time was an “entirely new path to address the claimed ‘first location’” introduced in the Decision.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“path to address the claimed ‘first location’” and relies on In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to support Patent Owner’s implied contention that the Final Decision may not address new arguments raised by Patent Owner in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and/or Patent Owner’s Response. Req. Reh’g. 6. We disagree. In the present matter and in accordance with Magnum Oil, the ultimate burden of proof remained with Petitioner and was never shifted to Patent Owner at any time during the proceedings and, as discussed above, at no time was an “entirely new path to address the claimed ‘first location’” introduced in the Decision.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,921,211 - Black Swamp IP, LLC v. Virnetx Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 24, 2017 · IPR2016-00693 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied VirnetX’s rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claims 27 and 51 are anticipated by Kiuchi.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“path to address the claimed ‘first location’” and relies on In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to support Patent Owner’s implied contention that the Final Decision may not address new arguments raised by Patent Owner in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and/or Patent Owner’s Response. Req. Reh’g. 6. We disagree. In the present matter and in accordance with Magnum Oil, the ultimate burden of proof remained with Petitioner and was never shifted to Patent Owner at any time during the proceedings and, as discussed above, at no time was an “entirely new path to address the claimed ‘first location’” introduced in the Decision.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“path to address the claimed ‘first location’” and relies on In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to support Patent Owner’s implied contention that the Final Decision may not address new arguments raised by Patent Owner in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and/or Patent Owner’s Response. Req. Reh’g. 6. We disagree. In the present matter and in accordance with Magnum Oil, the ultimate burden of proof remained with Petitioner and was never shifted to Patent Owner at any time during the proceedings and, as discussed above, at no time was an “entirely new path to address the claimed ‘first location’” introduced in the Decision.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,418,504 - Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IdecRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00912 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Swiss Pharma’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–16, 21, and 22 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 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. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing 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, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Patent Owner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“however, that the variable to be optimized had to be recognized as a result effective variable. Id. at 620. In the instant case, Petitioner only suggests changing the concentration of the antibody to allow it to be stored in known vials. Petitioner does not explain, however, how merely adding a sufficient concentration of natalizumab to a known vial is a result effective variable. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 40), Dr. Brod testified that “the concentration of natalizumab is not important from the stand-point of administration as partial, single or multiple vials can be added to an intravenous bag in order to provide the proper dose.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 27. Thus, although the testimony may be read as demonstrating that the concentration is not critical, it also demonstrates that the concentration of the antibody in terms of its storage was not recognized as a result effective variable.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“however, that the variable to be optimized had to be recognized as a result effective variable. Id. at 620. In the instant case, Petitioner only suggests changing the concentration of the antibody to allow it to be stored in known vials. Petitioner does not explain, however, how merely adding a sufficient concentration of natalizumab to a known vial is a result effective variable. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 40), Dr. Brod testified that “the concentration of natalizumab is not important from the stand-point of administration as partial, single or multiple vials can be added to an intravenous bag in order to provide the proper dose.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 27. Thus, although the testimony may be read as demonstrating that the concentration is not critical, it also demonstrates that the concentration of the antibody in terms of its storage was not recognized as a result effective variable.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We disagree. We noted in our decision that similarly to Soberra, Gordon also taught a 3 mg/ml infusion, and used a 5 mg/ml formulation. Dec. 12‒13. We then looked at the references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich in establishing that formulations were available in stoppered vials in a number of different volumes. Id. at 13. We noted that only one antibody solution was referenced by Dr. Schöneich, and that antibody solution contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. Id. The other references were directed to small molecule drugs, and we noted that Dr. Schöneich did not explain why the ordinary artisan would look to those references when formulating an antibody solution. Id. The fact that Petitioner may not agree with our consideration of the evidence does not mean that we overlooked that evidence, or that we misapprehended it.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,815,236 - Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IdecRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00915 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Swiss Pharma’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–4 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 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. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing 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, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Patent Owner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As noted in our Decision, however, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 10‒12 (quoting Pet. 27). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 10. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 12‒13.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“The court held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Id. at 456. The court noted, however, that “changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” Id. In concluding that the patentability of the claims was not demonstrated, the court noted that “[a]ny chemist reading the article could logically assume that higher yields might be obtainable, and by experimentally varying the conditions of temperature and acidity could find the most productive conditions.” Id. at 458. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), the court noted, however, that the variable to be optimized had to be recognized as a result effective variable. Id. at 620. In the instant case, Petitioner only suggests changing the concentration of the antibody to allow it to be stored in known vials. Petitioner does not explain, however, how merely adding a sufficient concentration of natalizumab to a known vial is a result effective variable. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 40), Dr. Brod testified that “the concentration of natalizumab is not important from the stand-point of administration as partial, single or multiple vials can be added to an intravenous bag in order to provide the proper dose.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 27. Thus, although the testimony may be read as demonstrating that the concentration is not critical, it also demonstrates that the concentration of the antibody in terms of its storage was not recognized as a result effective variable.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“37 C.F.R. § 42.108 relates to institution of inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) states: Sufficient grounds. Inter partes review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the petition supporting the ground would demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. The Board’s decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c), therefore, applies to those situations in which patent owner submits testimonial evidence to support its preliminary response. In those situations where that testimonial evidence creates an issue of material fact, the evidence will be considered in the light most favorable to the petitioner. Patent Owner did not submit any such testimonial evidence in support of its Preliminary Response in the instant proceeding. Moreover, the rule does not relieve Petitioner of its burden of demonstrating in its Petition a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, such that inter partes review may be instituted. In the instant proceeding, for the reasons discussed in the Decision, we determined that the Petition failed to make such a showing.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,349,321 - Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IdecRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00916 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding the obviousness showing insufficient.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 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. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing 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, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Patent Owner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As noted in our Decision, however, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 11‒12 (quoting Pet. 27‒28). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 11. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 13.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 11‒12 (quoting Pet. 27‒28). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 11. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 13.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,900,577 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2017 · IPR2015-01409 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied AMD’s rehearing request, leaving unchanged its determination that AMD had not shown claim 30 unpatentable over Orenstien, Nicol, and ACPI.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We find Petitioner’s predictable-variation argument is not persuasive because Petitioner did not raise it in the Petition. Instead, when mapping Orenstien to the disputed element, Petitioner merely quoted Orenstien’s separate processor-monitoring and core-shutdown teachings and, without further discussion, concluded “a POSA would have understood Orenstien to teach or suggest that a core of a multi-core processor could be turned off if the total use amount of the processor fell below a prescribed value.” Pet. 41–42; see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 49, 169, 170; Paper 20, 15–17. That mapping did not address “predictable variations” of Orenstein’s teachings, or suggest that leakage current or power consumption would have motivated one skilled in the art to combine Orenstein’s separate teachings. Id. Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook this argument because Petitioner did not raise it in the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In our Decision, we concluded Petitioner had not met its burden of showing claim 30 would have been obvious over Orenstien,1 Nicol,2 and ACPI.3 Dec. 21–23. Specifically, we determined Petitioner did not show sufficiently that Orenstien discloses “the computer to turn off at least one core . . . when the determined processor use amount is less than a second prescribed value,” as claim 30 requires. Id.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,636,863
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.