- Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Shockwave Medical, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 2, 2023 · IPR2019-00405 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claims 1–4 and 6–17 unpatentable as obvious, claim 5 not shown unpatentable, and denied both motions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingGranted in part
“preponderance of evidence that claims 1–4 and 6–17 are unpatentable, but for the reasons expressed below rather than those expressed in our Decision. Additionally, we maintain our prior conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that claim 5 is unpatentable without any modification to our reasoning expressed in the Decision. We repeat our prior analysis of claim 5 from our Decision so that this single paper contains the substance of our analysis of all of Petitioner’s challenges to the claims. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–4 and 6–17 are unpatentable but has failed to show that claim 5 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 6
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2002–2004, 2006, 2008, 2016, 2017, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2132, 2133, 2139, 2141, 2149, 2152, 2161, 2162, 2163, 2164, 2170–2176, 2196, and 2100 (¶¶ 18, 19, 59, 60, 66, 132, 143, 144, 165, 170, 175, 199, 201, 205, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, and 229) is denied;” slip op. at 96
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery is denied; and” slip op. at 96
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“laser as enough of a concern that its balloon could be cooled by circulating liquid through the balloon. Pet. 18, 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 120); Reply 31 (citing Ex. 1003, 3–5). However, Petitioner fails to adduce evidence that an EHL shockwave generator produces less heat than a laser-based shockwave generator such as Levy’s. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute an EHL probe for Levy’s laser probe to reduce heat generated by the probe.” slip op. at 38
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,956,371 - Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · CBM2018-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to authorize a request for Director rehearing of the final written decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Given the particular circumstances of this proceeding, particularly that the Request for Rehearing was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, we construe Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as requesting authorization to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision and grant this request. Patent Owner is authorized to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision within 30 days of the date of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Given the particular circumstances of this proceeding, particularly that the Request for Rehearing was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, we construe Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as requesting authorization to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision and grant this request. Patent Owner is authorized to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision within 30 days of the date of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,933,827 - Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · CBM2018-00030 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Nasdaq’s rehearing request and authorized it to seek Director rehearing of the final written decision within 30 days.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“STANDARD A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See generally 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (b)–(d). 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) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“The United States Patent and Trademark Office subsequently implemented an interim procedure1 whereby review of a final written decision by the Director may be requested by a party to a post-grant review proceeding.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,921,051 - Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · CBM2018-00029 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Nasdaq’s rehearing request and authorized it to seek Director rehearing of the final written decision within 30 days.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Given the particular circumstances of this proceeding, particularly that the Request for Rehearing was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, we construe Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as requesting authorization to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision and grant this request. Patent Owner is authorized to file a Request for Rehearing by the Director of the Final Written Decision within 30 days of the date of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,747,506 - Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Ften, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · CBM2018-00020 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for rehearing and authorized it to seek Director rehearing of the final written decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“STANDARD A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See generally 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (b)–(d). 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) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021). The Supreme Court held “that 35 U.S.C. § 6(c) is unenforceable as applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the Director from reviewing the decisions of the PTAB on his own. The Director may engage in such review and reach his own decision.” Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. at 1987. The Supreme Court “conclude[d] that the appropriate remedy is a remand to the Acting Director for him to decide whether to rehear the petition.” Id. The United States Patent and Trademark Office subsequently implemented an interim procedure1 whereby review of a final written decision by the Director may be requested by a party to a post-grant review proceeding.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,386,371 - Proppant Express Investments, LLC / Proppant Express Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · May 20, 2020 · IPR2017-02103 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted in part: claims 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 were held unpatentable; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“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). Therefore, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“evidence quantifying how much additional weight Smith’s container could hold if reinforced as Petitioners proposed,” Opp. 3, we also find it unpersuasive. We determine that Dr. Wooley’s testimony, by itself, supports our conclusion that Smith’s container, as Petitioner proposes to modify and combine it with the other pieces of prior art, would meet the “at least 30,000 pounds” limitation. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 132–141. In this testimony, Dr. Wooley provided a detailed explanation of how much proppant the modified Smith container could hold. See id. We have reviewed that testimony and agree with Dr. Wooley’s conclusion and reasoning. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has failed to provide “any” evidence to support our conclusion that Smith’s modified container can hold “at least 30,000 pounds” as required by claims 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“however, the failure to show the “at least 30,000 pounds” limitation was the sole basis for our finding that Petitioner had failed to prove that claims 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 were unpatentable. See Final Dec. 33–36, 42–43, 59. We find that the Petitioner has shown all of the limitations of these claims are accounted for in the proposed combinations and that Petitioner has provided an adequate rationale for why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner proposed with a reasonable expectation of success. See generally Final Dec. (addressing all of Patent Owner’s remaining arguments); Pet. 34–58 (providing mapping for claims 7, 10, 12), 69–70 (claim 15), 79–82 (claims 18 and 19). Accordingly, we modify our Final Decision and find that claims 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19 have been shown to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,511,929 - PTAB · Mar 29, 2017 · IPR2016-01492 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing in part to explain institution on Eizenhöfer and Miller anticipation grounds for claims 13–15 and require claim-interpretation briefing; it denied rehearing on § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“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 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” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“terminal demand” in a single sentence supported by citations to portions of the Specification and testimony from Dr. Lomp. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:8–11, 18:50–54, 19:1–4, Figure 15A; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 7, 16, 19–21). Based on our review of the cited portions of the Specification, it is not apparent how those sections support WPI’s proffered meaning of “subscriber terminal demand.” None of the cited portions explicitly defines “subscriber terminal demand” or uses the term, and WPI does not explain why those cited portions are relevant to the inquiry. The cited testimony from Dr. Lomp reflects his opinion but is not supported by any citations to other evidence, including the Specification itself. To the extent that WPI’s argument regarding the meaning of “subscriber terminal demand” relies upon Dr. Lomp’s testimony, we currently find that argument unpersuasive because it is unsupported by other evidence. TCT has not expressly argued the meaning of “subscriber terminal demand” but instead implies a meaning by identifying specific portions of Eizenhöfer that allegedly teach this limitation. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:7–10, Abstract). Absent briefing with citations to relevant evidence, we decline to offer our own express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand.” Rather, we determine that TCT’s implied interpretation and its argument based on that interpretation demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of establishing that Eizenhöfer describes the recited limitation. Because resolution of the dispute may require an express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand,” we also direct the parties to address explicitly the meaning of this phrase at trial and cite relevant evidence from among at least other claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“reasons. First, WPI has failed, as required under Rule 42.71(c), to identify an abuse of discretion stemming from our allegedly “unreasonable” failure to exercise discretion under § 325(d) and deny institution of challenges based on Miller. Second, WPI merely reiterates an argument already considered and rejected, and thus fails to meet its obligation under Rule 42.71(d) to “identify all matters . . . misapprehended or overlooked.” We disagree that WPI offered a “clear comparison” of the entirety of the claims that were allegedly previously considered by the Office during reexamination of the ’326 patent to the claims at issue in this proceeding. Describing claims in the ’326 patent as “closely related” or reciting “similar features” without providing the actual text of those claims fails to provide an adequate basis for comparing those claims to the claims at issue in this proceeding. The paraphrased comparison of claims in the ’326 patent to the claims here is similarly lacking in clarity. Third, even if we were to determine that WPI sufficiently compared the “orthogonal code generator” recited in claims of the ’326 patent to the one recited in the claims at issue, such a comparison fails to demonstrate enough similarity in the claims overall to justify a discretionary denial of TCT’s challenge based on Miller.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“TCT has not expressly argued the meaning of “subscriber terminal demand” but instead implies a meaning by identifying specific portions of Eizenhöfer that allegedly teach this limitation. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:7–10, Abstract). Absent briefing with citations to relevant evidence, we decline to offer our own express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand.” Rather, we determine that TCT’s implied interpretation and its argument based on that interpretation demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of establishing that Eizenhöfer describes the recited limitation. Because resolution of the dispute may require an express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand,” we also direct the parties to address explicitly the meaning of this phrase at trial and cite relevant evidence from among at least other claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,381,211 - Westerngeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical AsRehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2015-00313 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claim 2 unpatentable as anticipated by Gallagher, modifying the final written decision; no other aspect was modified.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“On rehearing, the burden of showing the 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 a reply.” Id. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is granted. This decision on rehearing modifies our Final Written Decision only to the extent that we now hold claim 2 of the ’059 patent to be unpatentable as anticipated by Gallagher. Neither party challenges our holdings with respect to any other claims in our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Owner, and Petitioner does not contest, that traces “have the same coordinates” when those traces populate the same bin in the “set of bins.” We agree with Petitioner, however, that the disputed limitation is tied to the assignment of coordinates, not to the organizing step, and we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that a trace can only populate a particular bin after “the coordinate-designated set of traces” has been organized.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“interpreted properly (i.e., not tied to the organizing step), Gallagher teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Req. Reh’g 5–6. We found persuasive Petitioner’s mappings of (1) Gallagher’s assignment of sections and shells in a common reference point bin to the assigning step, (2) the section-shell segments created from that assignment to the recited set of bins, and (3) Gallagher’s decimation process, which in one example leaves one trace per section-shell segment (or bin), to the organizing step. Dec. 14–19; see Pet. 45–48. In Gallagher, it is the combination of the acquisition geometry and the selection of the sections and shells that defines the coordinate-designated set of traces and the bins. Prior to Gallagher’s decimation,” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,026,059 - Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 13, 2016 · IPR2015-00710 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing in part and instituted review of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 on anticipation and obviousness grounds; it denied rehearing on the remaining claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“When the Petition and Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony are considered in view of the Request for Rehearing, we agree that we overlooked Petitioner’s argument that the “gas flow passage” of Figure 2 extends from the upper surface of insulator 122 to the upper exterior of feedthrough 100, i.e., traverses the space between insulator 122 and washer 124. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:18–21, 7:27–29). Given this evidence associating the “minute” gaps with the space between insulator 122 and washer 124, and in light of our current construction of “laminar delamination gap” requiring no specific dimensions for a “very thin gap,” we are persuaded that the evidence of record sufficiently supports Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fraley discloses a “laminar delamination gap,” under a construction requiring a “very thin space.” 3 Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52 (p. 45). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, we grant-in-part and deny-in-part Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and institute inter partes review on the grounds set forth below.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“7. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley; we are not persuaded that claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12–15, 18, and 19 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenMixed
“of the Request for Rehearing, we agree that we overlooked Petitioner’s argument that the “gas flow passage” of Figure 2 extends from the upper surface of insulator 122 to the upper exterior of feedthrough 100, i.e., traverses the space between insulator 122 and washer 124. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:18–21, 7:27–29). Given this evidence associating the “minute” gaps with the space between insulator 122 and washer 124, and in light of our current construction of “laminar delamination gap” requiring no specific dimensions for a “very thin gap,” we are persuaded that the evidence of record sufficiently supports Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fraley discloses a “laminar delamination gap,” under a construction requiring a “very thin space.” 3 Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52 (p. 45).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because Exhibit 2008, relied upon by Patent Owner to support its argument, instructs that “[a] braze fillet should ideally be very small.” Ex. 2008, 1; see also id. at 2 (“Keep the fillet small. Remember, all the good things about a braze joint are happening INSIDE the joint, not in the outside fillets.”). Thus, on this record, regardless of any variation in the size of the braze-fillet, Patent Owner’s evidence and attorney argument do not demonstrate that the space between insulator 122 and washer 124 would be “substantial.” Based on the foregoing, and upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, the evidence of record, and the supporting testimony of Dr. Irazoqui, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 16 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley.” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,327,553 - Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 26, 2015 · IPR2015-00171 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted in part, instituting review of claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56 for anticipation and claim 57 for obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 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 party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because Petitioner has shown Mr. Cooper’s testimony is supported by underlying factual evidence, and is not based solely on an unsupported assumption and the Miura Declaration, we determine Mr. Cooper’s testimony provides persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that DME is inherently present in an overhead distillation stream of the ’095 patent process, and that claim 42 is anticipated by the ’095 patent. We have also reviewed the Petition’s analysis of dependent claims 43, 44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56, and conclude Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation and evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that the additional limitations of these claims are described in the ’095 patent. See Pet. 27–35. In sum, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the merits in showing claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56 are anticipated by the ’095 patent. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is granted and trial is instituted as to this challenge.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureReference is prior artInherency foundInstituted
“the Petition, and overlooked the fact that Mr. Cooper’s opinion is also based on his own calculations and data in two published articles. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 99. Specifically, Mr. Cooper approximates reactor DME equilibrium concentrations in the ’095 patent examples and explains how these approximations were obtained using readily available data, specifically identifying data in two published articles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 99 (citing Exs. 1029, 1030). Mr. Cooper goes on to explain why, based on the reactor contents and distillation conditions in the ’095 patent examples, DME and acetaldehyde would be present in the overhead distillation streams. Id. ¶¶ 101–102. Because Petitioner has shown Mr. Cooper’s testimony is supported by underlying factual evidence, and is not based solely on an unsupported assumption and the Miura Declaration, we determine Mr. Cooper’s testimony provides persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that DME is inherently present in an overhead distillation stream of the ’095 patent process, and that claim 42 is anticipated by the ’095 patent. We have also reviewed the Petition’s analysis of dependent claims 43, 44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56, and conclude Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation and evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that the additional limitations of these claims are described in the ’095 patent. See Pet. 27–35. In sum, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the merits in showing claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56 are anticipated by the ’095 patent. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is granted and trial is instituted as to this challenge.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“terms, and we agree, for purposes of this decision, that claim 42 does not require a specific quantity of DME in the distillation overhead. We do not agree with Petitioner, however, that the Singh and ’507 patent disclosures are identical with respect to the addition of water to distillation column 22. As indicated in our Decision, both Singh and the ’507 patent describe adding small amounts of water to column 22 for the purpose of inhibiting impurity formation. See Dec. 5–6. The ’507 patent, however, includes additional description of adding water to column 22 for the purpose of producing DME in the distillation overhead. See id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 11). This additional description of adding water to produce DME in the distillation overhead does not refer back to the description of adding water as an inhibitor (see Ex. 1002, 10:9–32), or otherwise indicate that the small amounts of water used to inhibit impurity formation in the ’507 patent and Singh processes would produce DME in a distillation overhead. In addition, for the reasons explained in our Decision (Dec. 25–26), Petitioner has not persuaded us that the prosecution history of the ’507 patent includes an admission by Patent Owner that the addition of any amount of water to the distillation step would result in DME in an overhead stream. See Req. Reh’g 10. In sum, Petitioner has not convinced us that our Decision was based on an erroneous claim interpretation or that we overlooked evidence that the addition of any amount of water in the steps common to the Singh and the ’507 patent processes would necessarily result in the presence of DME in a distillation overhead. With respect to Petitioner’s assertions regarding Akinori, we note the Petition relied on Akinori as evidence that DME was necessarily produced in the ’095 patent process. See Pet. 43. Petitioner did not explain how Akinori was relevant to show the presence of DME in the distillation overhead of Singh. For the above reasons, the Request for Rehearing is denied as to the challenge based on Singh in view of the ’095 patent and Akinori.” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,076,507
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.