- PTAB · Oct 15, 2020 · IPR2019-00995 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 2, 8, 10, 18, 19, 28–30, 32–34, 37, 38, 40–42, 45, and 47 and substituting claims 48–62, which were not shown obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“minimal probative value because Patent Owner has not adequately demonstrated a nexus between the asserted objective indicia and the merits of the claimed invention. Mot. to Exclude 3–4; Reply Mot. to Exclude 1–2. This argument attacks the merits of Patent Owner’s substantive arguments on objective indicia and does not establish an evidentiary basis for excluding Mr. Van Vliet’s testimony. We agree with Patent Owner that Mr. Van Vliet’s testimony is relevant to the issue of objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Opp. Mot. to Exclude 1–2. Petitioner also argues that Mr. Van Vliet’s declaration should be excluded because it contains hearsay. Mot. to Exclude 4–6; Reply Mot. to Exclude 2. Petitioner states that it “is not moving to exclude based on the fact that the Declaration itself [is] hearsay, but rather that it contains a multitude of statements therein that are themselves hearsay, made by persons other than Van Vliet . . . .” Mot. to Exclude 5. However, as Patent Owner points out, Petitioner does not identify any specific statements in the declaration that constitute hearsay. Opp. Mot. to Exclude 4. Even after Patent Owner pointed out this lack of specificity, Petitioner’s Reply still does not clarify which specific statements in the declaration are alleged to be hearsay and instead simply repeats the assertion there are “a multitude of statements therein that are themselves hearsay.” Reply Mot. to Exclude 2.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“however, we first consider whether Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4. To satisfy those requirements, Patent Owner must demonstrate that: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of filing date is sought). See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (2018).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“We determine that the plain language of the claim, which requires that the fuel delivery connections “compris[e]” the fuel level sensor, shows that the fuel level sensor is structurally connected to the fuel level sensor. As Petitioner agrees, this claim language requires that the fuel delivery connection includes the fuel level sensor. Tr. 34:17–20. Both the fuel delivery connections and the fuel level sensor are structures, so for one to include the other, they must be physically connected. Petitioner’s argument give effect to the word “comprising.” Because a fuel delivery connection and a fuel level sensor would be operationally connected in any system that has both items, Petitioner’s interpretation essentially reads out the word “comprising” and treats the claim phrase as if it recited “fuel delivery connections and a fuel level sensor.” Our interpretation that the fuel delivery connections must be physically connected to the fuel level sensor is more faithful to the claim’s recitation that the fuel delivery connections “compris[e]” the fuel level sensor. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”) (quoting Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“a low and high fuel level in the tanks to which the fuel delivery connection is connected.” RMTA A1. Patent Owner proposes that “low” fuel level means “empty or nearly empty” and “high” means “full or nearly full.” Id. at 5 nn.16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–4, 6:7–12; Ex. 2002, 10). Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s proposed constructions or offer competing constructions for these terms. See generally Opp. RMTA; Tr. 13:17–15:14. Although Patent Owner’s argument in support of these constructions is truncated, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposals are supported by the evidence of record. The ’906 patent describes that operators can be provided with “visual representations or displays showing the fuel level in each of the tanks 12. Any visual representation or display may be used that shows at least a high level condition (tank full) and a low level condition (tank empty or nearly empty) and preferably also shows actual fuel level.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:4; see also id. at 6:7–10 (explaining that “[t]he control station 56 may be provided with a full readout or display for each fuel tank 12 being filled that shows the level of fuel in the fuel tank 12 including when the fuel tank 12 is near empty and near full. An alternative is to provide only fuel empty (low sensor dry) or fuel full (high sensor wet) signals.”). These descriptions equate a high fuel level with the tank being full or nearly full and a low fuel level with the tank being empty or nearly empty. Patent” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,029,906 - PTAB · Oct 28, 2014 · IPR2014-00062 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated IPR2014-00062 as to all parties after settlement, before deciding the merits.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“reviews, after the parties have settled their disputes, would be contrary to public policy and would discourage future settlements by removing a significant motivation for settlement. Mot. 5. In view of the circumstances, we agree. Indeed, there are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the parties to a proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Generally, the Board expects that” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDenied
“3. However, Google’s Petitions were not filed timely in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”).3 Google could have, but did not, file a petition for inter partes review with the one-year time period. More significantly, Google’s Motions for Joinder were not filed timely in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”).4 Google fails to provide sufficient reasons as to why we should exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to waive the one-month time limit for filing a Motion for Joinder.5” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,802,310 - PTAB · Oct 28, 2014 · IPR2014-00058 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions, terminated the Rackspace inter partes reviews as to all parties, and granted confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Hosting, Inc. (collectively, “Rackspace”) and Patent Owner PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications (collectively, PersonalWeb) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate in each of the above-identified inter partes reviews (“the Rackspace inter partes reviews”). Paper 34, “Mot.”2 The parties also filed a true copy of their Written Settlement Agreement, made in connection with the termination of the Rackspace inter partes reviews, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Ex. 1014. Additionally, the parties submitted a Joint Request to have their Written Settlement Agreement treated as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 33. For the reasons set forth below, the Joint Motions to Terminate and the Requests to have their Written Settlement Agreement treated as confidential business information are granted.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDenied
“court proceedings involving PersonalWeb and third parties. Mot. 6–7. However, except for EMC Corporation and VMWare, Inc. (collectively “EMC”) and Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), none of the third parties elected to file a Petition for inter partes review within the one-year statutory period under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Id. at 7. We note that the termination of the Rackspace inter partes reviews would not affect the inter partes reviews that involve EMC and Apple. We are cognizant that Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC (collectively “Google”) filed four Petitions—IPR2014-00977, IPR2014- 00978, IPR2014-00979, and IPR2014-00980—and Motions for Joinder with four of the Rackspace inter partes reviews. See, e.g., IPR2014-00977, Paper 3. However, Google’s Petitions were not filed timely in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”).3 Google could have, but did not, file a petition for inter partes review with the one-year time period. More significantly, Google’s Motions for Joinder were not filed timely in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”).4 Google fails to provide sufficient reasons as to why we should exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to waive the one-month time limit for filing a Motion for Joinder.5” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2014 · CBM2013-00005 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Final written decision
Original claims 1–4 were cancelled at Patent Owner’s request; proposed substitute claims 5–8 were denied for insufficient written-description support and other motion-to-amend deficiencies.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“consideration. In the motion, Markets-Alert requests cancellation of claims 1-4 and requests to add proposed claims 5-8. Mot. to Amend 1-2. The cancellation of claims 1-4 is not based on any contingency. There is no indication, for example, that the proposed claims 5-8 should be considered only if the original patent claims 1-4 are determined unpatentable. Rather, the substitute motion to amend leaves no doubt that Markets-Alert unequivocally requests cancellation of claims 1-4. None of the papers filed by Markets-Alert, once trial was instituted, indicates that Markets-Alert is 6 Markets-Alert was made aware of the Petitioner’s allegations that the patent owner response “is inappropriate as it merely contains arguments as to why the proposed substitute claims are patentable over the prior art.” Paper 41 at 2. Nonetheless, Markets-Alert did not seek authorization to file a substitute patent owner response. arguing for the patentability of claims 1-4. Bloomberg understood the record to mean that Markets-Alert seeks to cancel claims 1-4, not based on any contingency. Pet. Rep. 1 (“MA has unambiguously canceled each of the challenged ’357 Patent claims 1-4, upon which the Board instituted trial.”); Tr. 5:11-18. During oral argument, counsel for Markets-Alert indicated that Markets-Alert intended the cancellation of claims 1-4 to be contingent upon a Board determination as to the patentability with respect to claims 1-4. See, e.g., Tr. 22-26. When asked where in Markets-Alert’s papers did Markets- Alert indicate that cancellation of claims 1-4 was contingent on a Board’s determination with respect to the patentability of claims 1-4, counsel for Markets-Alert explained that there was no explicit indication of contingency. Tr. 25-26 (“JUDGE MEDLEY: And where did you – what you just said where is that, could you point us to where in your papers you make that type of contingency type argument? MR. CHOUNG: That’s where, Your Honor, I can’t say to you that we explicitly said that as a contingency.”). The only reasonable reading of the record is that the cancellation of original claims 1-4 was not contingent on anything. Because Markets-Alert requested cancellation of claims 1-4, not based on any contingency, Markets-Alert has waived any issues with respect to claims 1-4, and, therefore, we need not address the patentability of those claims. For these reasons, we grant Markets-Alert’s request to cancel claims 1-4.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“support in an earlier-filed disclosure for which the benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b). The requirement that the motion to amend must set forth the support in the original disclosure of the patent is with respect to each claim, not for a particular feature of a proposed claim. In other words, it is not sufficient for a motion to amend only to address where a particular added term or phrase is found in the specification. The motion must account for the entire claim in showing where there is written description support for the claim. Markets-Alert’s substitute motion to amend does not set forth the support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added. Instead, the motion only addresses “language not previously contained in the Original Claims.” Mot. to Amend 5. For this reason alone, Markets-Alert’s request that proposed claims 5-8 be added to the ’357 patent is insufficient.” slip op. at 13
- 112 supportDenied
“support in an earlier-filed disclosure for which the benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b). The requirement that the motion to amend must set forth the support in the original disclosure of the patent is with respect to each claim, not for a particular feature of a proposed claim. In other words, it is not sufficient for a motion to amend only to address where a particular added term or phrase is found in the specification. The motion must account for the entire claim in showing where there is written description support for the claim. Markets-Alert’s substitute motion to amend does not set forth the support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added. Instead, the motion only addresses “language not previously contained in the Original Claims.” Mot. to Amend 5. For this reason alone, Markets-Alert’s request that proposed claims 5-8 be added to the ’357 patent is insufficient.” slip op. at 13
- ScopeDenied
“As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2), a motion to amend may be denied where the amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Markets-Alert incorrectly states that proposed claim 5 and dependent claims 6 and 7 include all of the substantive limitations of claim 1 and that proposed independent claim 8 includes all of the structural and functional limitations of original claim 1. Mot. to Amend 2. In actuality, Markets-Alert removes certain features from original claims 1-4. For example, claim 1 recites “using the network of computers to periodically apply the user-specified watch data.” Claim 5 and independent claim 8 eliminate the requirement that the network of computers periodically apply the watch data. Claim 1 recites “causing a real-time notification by the network of computers to be provided to the user via a remote communications device.” Claim 5 and independent claim 8 eliminate the requirement that the notification be provided to the user. Markets-Alert does not explain how the removal of certain features is responsive to a ground of unpatentability. In order to be responsive to a ground of unpatentability, a proposed substitute claim only should add features to an original claim, absent an adequate explanation otherwise. For these reasons, Markets-Alert motion to amend fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2).” slip op. at 19
NonePatents in suitUS 7,941,357 - PTAB · Feb 25, 2014 · IPR2013-00016 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 were cancelled, and the motion to amend with substitute claims 19–23 was denied because MobileMedia did not establish the requirements for amendment or show patentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“nature. See Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A motion to amend claims in an inter partes review is not, itself, an amendment. As the moving party, MobileMedia bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In sum, MobileMedia’s proposed substitute claims are not entered automatically, but only upon MobileMedia having demonstrated the patentability of the substitute claims.” slip op. at 5
- ScopeDenied
“statutory considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)—“the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted”—the Office promulgated 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 to set forth the standards and procedures for allowing a patent owner, in an inter partes review, to move to amend the patent “to cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.” As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2), a motion to amend may be denied where the amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” slip op. at 15
- 112 supportDenied
“It is well settled that a limitation that uses the term “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “This presumption can be rebutted where the claim, in addition to the functional language, recites structure sufficient to perform the claimed function in its entirety.” Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, in order to take the “means for determining a direction” limitation outside the bounds of § 112, ¶ 6, the claim must recite sufficient structure for performing the recited function. See Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704 (“In deciding whether [the] presumption has been rebutted, the focus remains on whether the claim as properly construed recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid the ambit of § 112, ¶ 6.”).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Additionally, Dr. Madisetti does not proffer any evidence as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, which is a necessary factual inquiry for determining obviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18. In fact, Dr. Madisetti’s testimony does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and what was known previously regarding a recognition sensor that provides a detection signal or other claim features added in the substitute claims. At least some explanations should have been provided as to why a person with ordinary skill in the art, applying his own knowledge and creativity, would not have found the substitute claims obvious. In sum, limiting the discussion to the references cited in the petition is insufficient to demonstrate patentability of the substitute claims over the prior art in general. Without having discussed the level of ordinary skill in the art, and what was known previously regarding the features added in the substitute claims, MobileMedia’s motion fails to demonstrate the patentability of the substitute claims.” slip op. at 23
Nonecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,441,828
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.