- Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00204 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Maxell’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place because it reasonably weighed the Fintiv factors and did not abuse its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. In the Board’s informative Sand Revolution decision, the panel considered and gave weight to a petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Just as in Sand Revolution, we focused on the effects of Petitioner’s proposal to withdraw Van der Salm here: alleviating concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board and minimizing the potential for conflicting decisions. Dec. 16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it was unreasonable for us to consider Petitioner’s post-filing proposal to withdraw Van der Salm.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,928,306 - Dolby Laboratories, Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 8, 2020 · IPR2020-00663 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1 and 2 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either claim would have been obvious over Griswold or England.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the submitted evidence and argument, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’603 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’603 patent was filed (a “POSITA”) would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, mathematics, or a related field, and approximately two years of relevant experience or equivalent study in electronic data protection, electronic content protection, or digital rights management. Pet. 16. Petitioner further states that additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–48). Patent Owner sets forth a similar definition, stating that a POSITA would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and three years of work or research experience in the fields of secure transactions and encryption, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and two years of work or research experience in related fields. Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner states that the positions set forth in its Preliminary Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal. Id. The parties’ proposals do not differ in any meaningful way to the issues in dispute. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, except that we delete the qualifier “a minimum” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond, and thus does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti and is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the prior art and the ’603 patent. We note, however, that our analysis would be the same under either parties’ definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“should be construed to mean “conditions or characteristics determined in advance against which to check the structure and/or behavior of one or more software modules.” Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–72). To support this proposed construction, Petitioner states that the ’603 patent describes “inspector modules that ‘are operable to check the structure and/or behavior of drivers, software, and/or hardware against predefined criteria.’” Id. at 17 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 15:36–62); see also id. (citing Ex. 1001, 16:25–34, 23:63–24:4). Patent Owner contends that the term “predetermined criteria” does not require construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner further asserts that construction of this term is not necessary to resolve the matters presently in dispute. Id. We agree that no explicit construction of this phrase is necessary for our decision on whether to institute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“With respect to Petitioner’s first argument, Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would have understood that in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content[,] the monitor at the licensee’s site must first identify the software in order for the software to be used together with the content . . . .” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93), id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient evidence to support its contention. Although Petitioner cites to the declaration testimony of Dr. Madisetti to support its argument, Dr. Madisetti’s testimony merely repeats verbatim what is stated in the Petition and provides no additional persuasive facts or objective evidence to support his conclusion. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 93; see also id. at ¶¶ 77–82. To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d at 1380; see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s second argument that “a POSITA would have understood that in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content[,] the monitor at the licensee’s site must first identify the software . . . so that information identifying the software can be transmitted in the license datagram for evaluation at the licensor’s site.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51; Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence or argument either that the license datagram provides information about the software (as opposed to the licensed product itself) or a reason why a POSITA would have understood information about the software would be provided in the datagram for evaluation at the licensor’s site. To support this second argument, Petitioner states Griswold’s license check system involves sending a “request datagram” or a “license datagram” to the licensor’s site in order to obtain approval to use the licensed product. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:62–4:5, 5:44–52). Petitioner contends Griswold’s “license datagram 3 describes information related to the use of licensed product 1, including an identification of product 1 (i.e., the software).” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51); see also id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51; Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Griswold, however, does not state that license datagram 3 identifies the software separately from the product. Rather, Griswold sates that datagram 3 contains a number of fields, including product model number 24 that identifies product 1. Ex. 1006, 6:45–48. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that license datagram 3 identifies the software separately from the product. Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have understood that, in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content, the monitor must first identify the software so that information identifying the software can be transmitted in the license datagram for evaluation at the licensors site, is conclusory and unsupported. See Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Thus, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Griswold teaches the” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,406,603 - Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2020-00511 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied DivX’s rehearing request, leaving the institution decision in place because the rule remained effective and Dr. McDaniel’s testimony was supported on the record.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“assertions regarding Dr. McDaniel’s testimony. Dr. McDaniel testified that (a) Chen teaches video data streams, (b) “[a]s was widely known in the art, for example as disclosed by Grab-333,[1] a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that video data streams were comprised of a series of video frames,” and (c) a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Chen teaches a plurality of frames of video are encrypted using at least one scrambling key/control word.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 112;” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,184,920 - Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 3, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ClearOne’s rehearing request, declining to reconsider the patentability of proposed substitute claims 57–67 based on newly raised Levit and Gulbrandsen.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. Standard for Reconsideration The party challenging a Board decision 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).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“New evidence is not permitted in a request for rehearing without a showing of good cause. See Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 (PTAB January 8, 2019) (precedential). In this case, Petitioner appears to attempt to show good cause, though not expressly stating so, through the allegation that Patent Owner violated its duty of disclosure. Req. Reh’g 1–2. In the Order (Paper 95), the Board found Petitioner’s allegation insufficient, and did not permit briefing on a motion for sanctions for violating the duty of disclosure. Because Petitioner presents no other basis for good cause, the Board declines to admit the new evidence of Levit and Gulbrandsen into this proceeding.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 9,565,493 - Facebook, Inc. / Instagram, LLC et al. v. Blackberry LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 1, 2020 · IPR2019-00706 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 19–22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted combinations of Dallas, Brown, and Kent, with Bott, Mann, or LeBlanc as applicable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in software engineering, computer science, or computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years of experience in software application development, including development of applications for messaging (or equivalent degree/experience).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12–15). Because Patent Owner “does not dispute the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner” (PO Resp. 10), and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art and the ’120 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation. B.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The fundamental problem with the disputed language is that it causes the meaning of “notification” to turn on the interests, personality, perceptions, or actions of a user, rather than on the operation of the underlying program. As explained above, however, the notification described in the ’120 patent is simply a mechanism in the software that provides some sort of indication that a new message has been received. Unless it is silenced, that mechanism is triggered when a new message appears in the inbox, regardless of what the user of the software may or may not be doing at that time. 7. Conclusion We find no support for inclusion of the disputed language in the claims themselves, elsewhere in the ’120 patent, or in prosecution history; we find no extrinsic support, as Patent Owner’s expert offers only conclusory testimony; and we find that the disputed language would unnecessarily and improperly interject ambiguity into the claim. We thus do not adopt the disputed language and, instead, construe “notification” in the ’120 patent to mean “some form of visual, auditory, or physical cue to draw attention to an incoming message at the time of its receipt.” C.” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“4. Extrinsic Evidence Patent Owner also offers testimony of its expert in support of its claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 49–64. Although Dr. Smith contends that font color, bold text, and italics cannot be “notifications” because “[a person of skill in the art] would not have understood any of these display characteristics as a claimed ‘notification,’” he cites no evidence to support that bare conclusion and does not explain why font color and the like could not be notifications. See id. ¶ 52. We thus give this testimony little weight. Dr. Smith also reiterates Patent Owner’s arguments about “alerts,” the “manner of display,” and “bothering,” which we find unpersuasive for the reasons explained above. See id. ¶¶ 56–60. Dr. Smith further argues that Dallas’ flags, icons, and colors cannot be “notifications” because the user must be looking at their inbox in order to notice them. See id. at ¶¶ 53–55, 61–64. We find the question of whether Dallas’ flags, icons, and colors are “notifications” to be a matter of fact to be resolved in the patentability analysis, not a claim construction issue.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“c. Conclusion on the Independent Claims We find that Petitioner has shown how the combination of Dallas, Kent, and/or LeBlanc teaches all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 24, that the combination is supported with sufficient motivations to combine, and that Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of these claims would have been obvious.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,349,120 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,349,120 - Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–33, and 35–40 are unpatentable; claims 6 and 34 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 57–67.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“establish that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Motion is dismissed as moot, and Patent Owner’s Motion is denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art To establish the level of ordinary skill in the art, we look to various” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine the term “rotationally offset” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“date it becomes publicly accessible. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication under § 102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying fact findings.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,565,493 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,565,493 - Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 26, 2020 · IPR2019-01209 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because the Petition lacked adequate evidence and reasoning to support the proposed obviousness combination.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). 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.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). “An abuse of discretion is found if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As the Petition makes clear, the linchpin of Petitioner’s argument for modifying Brenner is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide of Brenner’s device. See Pet. 21 (“Thus, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the security device of Brenner is prone to reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide.”); id. at 34 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that . . . the security device will likely suffer from reliability issues associated with signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. at 35 (“[T]he optical transceivers of the sensor unit and the base unit may not be able to reliably communicate with one another due to optical signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. 6 The Petition and our Decision refer to this book by its title (“Communications Standard Dictionary”), but Petitioner now refers to it by the last name of its author (“Weik”). Compare Pet. 6, 19, with Req. Reh’g 2. For convenience and consistency with the Request for Rehearing, we refer to the book herein as “Weik.” Notably, Petitioner did not submit Weik as a prior art printed publication to be considered as part of an unpatentability ground, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (2018). See Pet. 5. Rather, the Petition cites Weik as support for its proposed claim construction and as support for an alleged “well-known fact” that an optical waveguide subjected to bending or winding is prone to signal loss. Id. at 6, 19. skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 17–18 (citing Pet. 21, 35). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As the Petition makes clear, the linchpin of Petitioner’s argument for modifying Brenner is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide of Brenner’s device. See Pet. 21 (“Thus, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the security device of Brenner is prone to reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide.”); id. at 34 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that . . . the security device will likely suffer from reliability issues associated with signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. at 35 (“[T]he optical transceivers of the sensor unit and the base unit may not be able to reliably communicate with one another due to optical signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. 6 The Petition and our Decision refer to this book by its title (“Communications Standard Dictionary”), but Petitioner now refers to it by the last name of its author (“Weik”). Compare Pet. 6, 19, with Req. Reh’g 2. For convenience and consistency with the Request for Rehearing, we refer to the book herein as “Weik.” Notably, Petitioner did not submit Weik as a prior art printed publication to be considered as part of an unpatentability ground, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (2018). See Pet. 5. Rather, the Petition cites Weik as support for its proposed claim construction and as support for an alleged “well-known fact” that an optical waveguide subjected to bending or winding is prone to signal loss. Id. at 6, 19. skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 17–18 (citing Pet. 21, 35). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that we overlooked evidence from Weik relied on in the Petition. Our Decision considered Weik’s description of a “microbend loss” that was quoted in the Petition: “the optical power loss caused by a microbend, i.e., a small bend, kink, or abrupt discontinuity in the direction of the optical axis of fibers, in the core-cladding interface surface, or both, usually caused by cabling, wrapping the fiber around drums and (citing Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002, 576)). But Petitioner does not identify, nor do we see, any assertion in the Petition that Weik shows a microbend loss can cause a “total failure” of an optical signal to reach its destination. See Req. Reh’g 9; Pet. 19–20, 34–35. Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing also does not identify where the Petition addressed Weik’s statement that microbends can cause radiative loss. See Pet. 19–20, 34–35. Because these arguments were not presented in the first instance in the Petition, we could not have overlooked them in our Decision.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,062,253 - Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 26, 2020 · IPR2019-01206 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because the Petition lacked sufficient evidence and reasoning to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). 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.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). “An abuse of discretion is found if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“ordinary skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 18 (citing Pet. 21, 36–37). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“ordinary skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 18 (citing Pet. 21, 36–37). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,818,274 - Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 21, 2020 · IPR2020-00014 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution for claims 1–6, 12, 13, and 15–18 because Vanguard did not show a sufficient, supported rationale to combine the prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify 1 US 2012/0019383 A1, filed July 20, 2010, published Jan. 26, 2012 (Ex. 1003). 2 US 5,317,305, filed Jan. 30, 1992, issued May 31, 1994 (Ex. 1006). specifically all matters we 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 on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Vanguard in turn.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that there would have been a sufficient reason to combine the relevant teachings of Wheeler, Fawcett, and Campman states: “A crowded retail store would not only make monitoring the security of display merchandise more difficult, but also increase the ambient noise thereby requiring a louder audible alarm to notify employees of a theft.” Req. Reh’g 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1012 ¶ 115). This testimony, however, does not cite to any underlying facts or data and, therefore, is entitled to little or no weight. See 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.”). Without the support of any underlying facts or data, Mr. Figh’s testimony suffers from the same hindsight reasoning that we discussed in the Decision. See Dec. 19. That is, only teachings of the ’082 patent itself suggest a need to increase the audible level of an alarm in a retail store, and it appears that Vanguard has used this particular teaching as a guide to combine the teachings of the asserted prior art references in the manner required to account for all the limitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, Fawcett teaches a dual alarm system for retail stores (Ex. 1003, code (57), ¶¶ 8, 46, 47), and there is no indication that Fawcett’s teachings are limited in any way to uncrowded retail stores. Also, Fawcett’s dual alarm system already is specifically designed for retail stores (id.), yet Vanguard proposes to modify this design with features in Campman’s personal alert safety system (Pet. 33–35). Campman provides a distress alarm that can be heard for a distance of a half-mile or more (Pet. 43, 84; Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:22–38, 6:30–32)), and the only reason Vanguard gives for using such an alarm in Fawcett’s retail store setting is that it would have provided a louder alarm (see Pet. 33–34). On the current record, we maintain that Vanguard has not established persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make Fawcett’s dual alarm system louder at all, much less to the extent taught by Campman.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“that there would have been a sufficient reason to combine the relevant teachings of Wheeler, Fawcett, and Campman states: “A crowded retail store would not only make monitoring the security of display merchandise more difficult, but also increase the ambient noise thereby requiring a louder audible alarm to notify employees of a theft.” Req. Reh’g 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1012 ¶ 115). This testimony, however, does not cite to any underlying facts or data and, therefore, is entitled to little or no weight. See 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.”). Without the support of any underlying facts or data, Mr. Figh’s testimony suffers from the same hindsight reasoning that we discussed in the Decision. See Dec. 19. That is, only teachings of the ’082 patent itself suggest a need to increase the audible level of an alarm in a retail store, and it appears that Vanguard has used this particular teaching as a guide to combine the teachings of the asserted prior art references in the manner required to account for all the limitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, Fawcett teaches a dual alarm system for retail stores (Ex. 1003, code (57), ¶¶ 8, 46, 47), and there is no indication that Fawcett’s teachings are limited in any way to uncrowded retail stores. Also, Fawcett’s dual alarm system already is specifically designed for retail stores (id.), yet Vanguard proposes to modify this design with features in Campman’s personal alert safety system (Pet. 33–35). Campman provides a distress alarm that can be heard for a distance of a half-mile or more (Pet. 43, 84; Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:22–38, 6:30–32)), and the only reason Vanguard gives for using such an alarm in Fawcett’s retail store setting is that it would have provided a louder alarm (see Pet. 33–34). On the current record, we maintain that Vanguard has not established persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make Fawcett’s dual alarm system louder at all, much less to the extent taught by Campman.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner
“testimony suffers from the same hindsight reasoning that we discussed in the Decision. See Dec. 19. That is, only teachings of the ’082 patent itself suggest a need to increase the audible level of an alarm in a retail store, and it appears that Vanguard has used this particular teaching as a guide to combine the teachings of the asserted prior art references in the manner required to account for all the limitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, Fawcett teaches a dual alarm system for retail stores (Ex. 1003, code (57), ¶¶ 8, 46, 47), and there is no indication that Fawcett’s teachings are limited in any way to uncrowded retail stores. Also, Fawcett’s dual alarm system already is specifically designed for retail stores (id.), yet Vanguard proposes to modify this design with features in Campman’s personal alert safety system (Pet. 33–35). Campman provides a distress alarm that can be heard for a distance of a half-mile or more (Pet. 43, 84; Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:22–38, 6:30–32)), and the only reason Vanguard gives for using such an alarm in Fawcett’s retail store setting is that it would have provided a louder alarm (see Pet. 33–34). On the current record, we maintain that Vanguard has not established persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make Fawcett’s dual alarm system louder at all, much less to the extent taught by Campman.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,008,082 - Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 1, 2020 · IPR2020-00014 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Vanguard did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under § 103, chiefly for lack of a sufficient rationale to combine the references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an inter partes review unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2012). Taking into account InVue’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Vanguard would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–6, 12, 13, and 15–18 of the ’082 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“that Vanguard does not present a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Fawcett and Campman in the manner required by independent claim 1. We understand Vanguard to argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Fawcett with those of Campman “to increase the sound level of a speaker or piezoelectric element,” thereby creating a “louder alarm.” Pet. 33–34. Vanguard, however, does not explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify Fawcett’s merchandise display security device in a manner that would result in a louder alarm. As InVue correctly notes, Fawcett discloses that its merchandise display security device already includes a dual alarm system (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8, 47), where at least one alarm is capable of “alert[ing] store personnel that a theft has been attempted within the display area” (id. ¶ 46). Vanguard does not provide a reasoned explanation as to why Fawcett’s dual alarm system would have benefited from an increased audible level. In our view, what is missing from Vanguard’s explanation is a convincing reason (e.g., an identified problem, a market demand, a specific design need, etc.) that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Campman’s resonating cavity 134 to create a louder alarm in Fawcett, especially when, as here, Fawcett already discloses that its dual alarm system is sufficient to alert store personnel of an attempted theft. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“KSR does not establish that it suffices for obviousness that a variation of the prior art would predictably work, but requires consideration of whether, in light of factors such as ‘design incentives and other market forces,’ the hypothetical skilled artisan would recognize the potential benefits and pursue the variation.” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 417)).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Lastly, we take this opportunity to note that Vanguard’s rationale to combine the teachings of Fawcett with those of Campman also appears to be based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. As we explain in our overview of the ’082 patent, the claims at issue in this proceeding purportedly are distinguishable from “conventional alarms” because they disclose “enhancing the sound level” by “facilitat[ing] a more direct path for the sound to exit the base.” Ex. 1001, 8:11–20. It appears that Vanguard has used the aforementioned disclosure in the ’082 patent as a guide to combine the teachings of Fawcett with those of Campman—namely, “to increase the sound level of a speaker or piezoelectric element,” thereby creating a “louder alarm.” Pet. 33–34. This is precisely the type of impermissible hindsight reconstruction that we have been cautioned to avoid. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983))); see also Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., 643 F. App’x 960, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming a holding that a petitioner improperly relied on hindsight where the petitioner “failed to demonstrate to the Board that the problem was known in the art or that [the petitioner’s] formulation of the problem was derived directly from the prior art, rather than from the challenged claims”).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We also are not persuaded by Mr. Figh’s supporting testimony on this particular issue. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 53, 66, 68, 69, 117. Similar to Vanguard’s explanation in its Petition, Mr. Figh’s supporting testimony does not address the pivotal issue—namely, why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Campman’s resonating cavity 134 to create a louder alarm in Fawcett, especially when, as here, Fawcett already discloses that its dual alarm system is sufficient to alert store personnel of an attempted theft. Moreover, Mr. Figh’s supporting testimony is replete with conclusory statements that are insufficient to support a ground of unpatentability based on obviousness. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 53 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would [have been] motivated to generate a louder alarm to alert employees and security of the theft of an article of merchandise.”), 68 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] seeking to enhance the compactness and sound output of a sound-generating security device would look to the teachings of Campman to notify others or seek assistance responsive to the attempted theft of merchandise by increasing the sound output of an alarm.”), 69 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would be motivated to increase the sound output of Fawcett using a resonating cavity disclosed in Campman in the event of an alarm to draw attention to the attempted theft and alert employees and/or security to the incident.”), 117 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] seeking to enhance the sound output of a sound-generating security device would look to the teachings of Campman to notify others or seek assistance responsive to the attempted theft of merchandise by increasing the sound output of an alarm.”).” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,008,082
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.