- 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 - Clearh2o, Inc. v. Ceva Animal Health Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 26, 2020 · IPR2020-00039 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ClearH2O’s rehearing request and left institution denied for claims 1–15 under all five § 103 grounds, finding no misapprehension or overlooked matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We disagree for the following two reasons. First, the Petition does not rely on Goff for disclosing the Third Limitation. Rather, the Petition relies on Lewis for disclosing the Third Limitation. Pet. 24 (Limitation 1.6). In addressing the Third Limitation, the Petition provides in its entirety: Lewis states that “The gel is sprayed over the top of the chicks in a uniform fashion to better ensure uniform distribution of the gel.” As shown in FIG. 1 of Lewis, the tray 14 is located beneath nozzle 18 so that the drops of gel 28 (i.e., beadlets) are distributed onto the hatchlings. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). The Petition makes no reference to Goff in addressing the Third Limitation, so we do not agree with Petitioner’s assertion that we failed to properly consider Goff in addressing this” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Second, and as explained in our Decision, Petitioner’s reliance on Goff is strikingly similar to the examiner’s reliance on Bartlett, Kurtz, and Peterson. See Dec. 26, 28. During prosecution, the examiner relied on Lewis for disclosing a majority of the claimed limitations, and relied on Bartlett, Kurtz, and Peterson for teaching nozzles “of approximately uniform size arranged approximately evenly apart along a manifold.” See id. at 26 (citing Ex. 2001, 149, 317, 358, 409); see also id. at 7–10 (summarizing office actions dated July 30, 2010, October 15, 2010, February 24, 2011, and June 21, 2011, and January 4, 2012). In the Petition, Petitioner also relied primarily on Lewis, relying on Goff for “describ[ing] an apparatus for spraying animals that includes spray nozzles 18 evenly spaced along a linear manifold (top member 16).” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:72–105, 2:20–58, Fig. 1); see also id. at 18–24 (relying primarily on Lewis in challenging claim 1). Petitioner does not persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked anything in our determination that Goff is cumulative to the art cited during prosecution, namely, Bartlett, Kurtz, and Peterson. See Dec. 26. Accordingly, Petitioner’s first argument is unavailing.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“This argument, however, is untimely as it was not presented in the Petition. A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments and evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (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 the Petition’s statement as to why we should institute review despite the similarities with the prosecution history, Petitioner only argues, Goff, Lee, and Lopez were not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘185 patent. While Lewis and Johnston were made of record during prosecution of the ‘185 patent, the Examiner did not consider either reference in combination with the other presently identified prior art references. Each ground of rejection presented herein therefore includes one or more prior art references that were not considered during examination. Pet. 5. Because the Petition did not argue that the examiner erred in overlooking Johnston, such as by forgetting Johnston, Petitioner’s argument in the Request is untimely. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,794,185 - Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2017-01917 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and confirmed that claim 13 was not shown unpatentable under §103 because the asserted safety factor was speculative and unsupported.
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). Therefore, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review.” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“based on speculation and entitled to little weight. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (according little weight to broad conclusory statements in expert testimony); Gorelik v. Holder, 339 F. App’x 70, 73 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that “little weight” should be given to an expert’s testimony where the expert’s reasoning is “speculative”); Jenkins v. Astrue, 250 F. App’x 645, 647 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that “hypothetical testimony” by a vocational expert, which is unsupported by the evidence, may be properly disregarded). Smith is a patent document, not an engineering specification, and does not mention any safety factor, let alone one that is at least 1.15. We credit Mr. Smith’s testimony that confirms this fact. See, e.g., Ex. 2049 ¶ 139 (“Smith is silent about whether his containers are designed with any safety factor, let alone something as specific as Dr. Wooley’s assumed 1.15”) (citing Ex. 2048, 145:25–146:3). Simply because Dr. Wooley testifies that Smith has a safety factor does not make it true. See Trial Practice Guide Update, 5 (August 2018) (“[E]xpert testimony . . . is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.”). We are mindful not to read into Smith that which is not disclosed; such hindsight bias has no role in an obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that Smith’s “sidewalls have a rigidity suitable for retaining no less than about 30,000 pounds of proppant when positioned therein,” as recited in claim 13. Ex. 1002, 10:14–17. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner did not meet its burden. In support of its “safety factor” argument, Petitioner relies on Dr. Wooley’s testimony that Smith has a safety factor of at least 1.15. See Pet. 70 (citing in relevant part Ex. 1001 ¶ 181); see also supra Part II.b. Dr. Wooley’s testimony regarding Smith’s safety factor, however, is based on speculation and entitled to little weight. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (according little weight to broad conclusory statements in expert testimony); Gorelik v. Holder, 339 F. App’x 70, 73 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that “little weight” should be given to an expert’s testimony where the expert’s reasoning is “speculative”); Jenkins v. Astrue, 250 F. App’x 645, 647 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that “hypothetical testimony” by a vocational expert, which is unsupported by the evidence, may be properly disregarded). Smith is a patent document, not an engineering specification, and does not mention any safety factor, let alone one that is at least 1.15. We credit Mr. Smith’s testimony that confirms this fact. See, e.g., Ex. 2049 ¶ 139 (“Smith is silent about whether his containers are designed with any safety factor, let alone something as specific as Dr. Wooley’s assumed 1.15”) (citing Ex. 2048, 145:25–146:3). Simply because Dr. Wooley testifies that Smith has a safety factor does not make it true. See Trial Practice Guide Update, 5 (August 2018) (“[E]xpert testimony . . . is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.”). We are mindful not to read into Smith that which is not disclosed; such hindsight bias has no role in an obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,296,518 - Fasteners For Retail, Inc. v. RTC Industries, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 15, 2018 · IPR2018-00744 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Fasteners for Retail’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because it failed to identify Olympus as a real party in interest.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner’s argument is without merit because it mischaracterizes our Order. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion (Request 5), our Order does not “instruct” or “direct” Petitioner to file a reply brief if it believes Olympus is not an unnamed RPI. Rather, our Order explicitly provides that if “Petitioner does not believe that Olympus is an unnamed real party in interest, in lieu of updating its mandatory notices, Petitioner may file a reply brief.” Order 3 (emphasis added). In other words, the Order does not state “Petitioner must file a reply brief,” as Petitioner’s argument would have us believe. The Order further provides:” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“We entered a decision denying institution (Paper 25, “DDI”), in which we explained that Petitioner failed to persuade us that Olympus was not an RPI. DDI 14.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,635,957 - Fasteners For Retail, Inc. v. RTC Industries, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 15, 2018 · IPR2018-00743 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Fasteners for Retail’s rehearing request and left institution denied because it failed to identify Olympus as a real party in interest.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner’s argument is without merit because it mischaracterizes our Order. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion (Request 5), our Order does not “instruct” or “direct” Petitioner to file a reply brief if it believes Olympus is not an unnamed RPI. Rather, our Order explicitly provides that if “Petitioner does not believe that Olympus is an unnamed real party in interest, in lieu of updating its mandatory notices, Petitioner may file a reply brief.” Order 3 (emphasis added). In other words, the Order does not state “Petitioner must file a reply brief,” as Petitioner’s argument would have us believe. The Order further provides: ORDERED that within 7 days of the entry of this Order, Petitioner may amend its mandatory notices to name other parties, including Olympus as a real party in interest in each [proceeding] . . . FURTHER ORDERED that in lieu of updating its mandatory notices, Petitioner may file a 7-page reply brief to address Patent Owner’s RPI arguments in each [proceeding].” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDecided for patent owner
“We entered a decision denying institution (Paper 25, “DDI”), in which we explained that Petitioner failed to persuade us that Olympus was not an RPI. DDI 14.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,504,321 - Fasteners For Retail, Inc. v. RTC Industries, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 15, 2018 · IPR2018-00742 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request in all four proceedings, upholding denial of institution because Petitioner failed to identify Olympus as a real party in interest.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“b. Standard for Reconsideration The party filing a request for rehearing 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). Therefore, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review. When rehearing a decision whether to institute a trial, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“I. INTRODUCTION a. Background Fasteners for Retail, Inc. (“Petitioner”), filed four petitions (IPR2018- 00741, IPR2018-00742, IPR2018-00743, and IPR2018-00744) requesting inter partes review of claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,173,505, 9,149,132, 9,504,321, and 9,635,957. Paper 1.2 RTC Industries, Inc. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) arguing that Petitioner failed to identify Olympus Partners LP (“Olympus”) as a real party-in-interest (“RPI”). Prelim. Resp. 28–39. After receiving the Preliminary Response, we issued an order (Paper 13, “Order”) permitting Petitioner to either: (1) amend its mandatory notices within 7 days to name Olympus as an RPI; or (2) file a reply brief within 7 days to address Patent Owner’s RPI argument. Order 4. Although it amended its mandatory notices to add certain additional RPIs (Paper 14), Petitioner chose to file a reply brief (Paper 15, “Reply”) rather than name Olympus as an RPI. We entered a decision denying institution (Paper 25, “DDI”), in which we explained that Petitioner failed to persuade us that Olympus was not an RPI. DDI 14.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,149,132 - Fasteners For Retail, Inc. v. RTC Industries, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 15, 2018 · IPR2018-00741 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Fasteners for Retail’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Petitioner failed to identify Olympus as a real party in interest.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“b. Standard for Reconsideration The party filing a request for rehearing 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). Therefore, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review. When rehearing a decision whether to institute a trial, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, the 7-day period for amending its mandatory notices to name Olympus as an RPI expired on July 27, 2018, (Order 4), and we entered our decision denying institution based on Petitioner’s failure to name Olympus as an RPI on September 12, 2018, (DDI 14). To permit Petitioner to now amend its mandatory notices to cure its failure to name Olympus as an RPI would be unfair to Patent Owner and would encourage gamesmanship by allowing petitioners to refrain from naming all RPIs until if and after such unnamed RPI is the cause for denying institution. Indeed, we are not aware of any Board decision that has permitted such amendment to mandatory notices after a decision denying institution. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,173,505 - Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 7, 2018 · IPR2017-00768 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its conclusion that claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable under the instituted 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 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 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“we found that “for at least the following two reasons, we disagree[d] with Petitioner’s argument that transposing Eng Soon’s pin and receptacle would have been a simple substitution to achieve predictable results.” Final Dec. 22 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In other words, even if we found that Constantin discloses an orifice or receptacle attached to its actuator—which we do not—we also found that transposing Eng Soon’s pin and receptacle as proposed by Petitioner would result in a more expensive system, and we disagreed with Petitioner’s assertion that modifying Eng Soon would have been a mere simple substitution. See Final Dec. 24 (“we agree with Mr. Smith that a POSITA would not modify Eng Soon to ‘reduce cost,’ as Petitioner proposes . . ., when doing so would increase the overall cost of the mobile containers”) (citing Ex. 2040 ¶ 76). Moreover, even if we treat Petitioner’s First Rationale as separate from its Second Rationale—thereby ignoring the Second Rationale when considering the First Rationale—when considered alone, Petitioner’s First Rationale fails to explain adequately why a POSITA would have transposed Eng Soon’s pin and receptacle. See Pet. 53–54. It is not enough to state that “[Eng Soon’s] pin and receptacle perform the same function to achieve the same result, regardless of their position, [and that] a POSITA would have been able to make the swap.” Reh’g Req. 11; see also Pet. 53–54 (“A POSITA reading Constantin would understand that there is no functional difference between these configurations”). In other words, it is not enough to argue that a POSITA could modify Eng Soon in a manner that meets the claims, without adequately explaining why a POSITA would make the modifications. See Personal Web Techs. LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that a skilled artisan would have understood that prior art could be combined insufficient; “it does not imply a motivation to pick out those two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention”). Indeed, we found that the proposed modification would result in a more expensive system. See Final Dec. 24.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“all challenged claims (claims 1–7) under all grounds, namely, Grounds 1 and 2.” Final Dec. 2. Indeed, the Petition sets forth only two grounds; Ground 1 challenging claims 1–3 and 5, and Ground 2 challenging claims 4, 6, and 7. Pet. 6 (Statutory Grounds of Challenge). In our Final Written Decision, we determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Final Dec. 2–3. In particular, we found that Constantin does not disclose an orifice attached to an actuator and concluded that a POSITA would not have modified Eng Soon as Petitioner proposed. See id. at 17–25. We find nothing in Petitioner’s “G1Constantinbased challenges” that cures these fatal defects. Moreover, Petitioner’s statement in footnote 5 that certain “aspects” of Eng Soon and Constantin can somehow be “vice-versa” swapped with other “aspects” fails to rise to the specificity and particularity required under 35 U.S.C § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The function of the Board is not to comb through the cited art in order to determine the strongest combination of references to meet the claims, thereby overcoming whatever deficiencies may exist in the Petition. See generally LG Elecs., Inc. v. Rosetta-Wireless Corp., Case IPR2016-01516 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2017) (Paper 25).” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,585,341
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.