- Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“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 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“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 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. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. v. Legend3d, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · May 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01491 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19 as obvious over Sandrew alone; other proposed grounds remained unauthorized.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“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 a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“clearly presented, we nonetheless overlooked Petitioner’s alternative reliance on Sandrew alone in as teaching or suggesting the claimed copying, particularly when taken in context of the anticipation ground based on Sandrew for which we instituted review. As stated in our Decision, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19 as anticipated by Sandrew. Dec. on Inst. 14. Petitioner’s anticipation challenge based on Sandrew, therefore, identified where it contends each element of claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19 of the ’941 patent is disclosed by Sandrew. Pet. 15–25. Petitioner’s obviousness challenge based on Sandrew alone relies upon these same contentions. Id. at 25–26. As such and based on the foregoing discussion, we find that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relying on Sandrew alone shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing only as to claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 19.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Petitioner fails to explain in the record before us how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Sandrew, Yuille, and various other references to arrive at the elements recited in claims 4, 11– 13, and 24. For instance, the Petition asserts, and the Request repeats, the following: “Yuille discloses express mathematical algorithms that can almost be cut and copied into the method of Sandrew to yield the invention of the ‘941 Patent.” Reh’g Req. 3 (quoting Pet. 36) (emphasis omitted). As Petitioner recognizes in the Request, this argument is directed to the copying of claim 1, and specifically to meeting an allegation that Sandrew and Yuille together teach automated copying, assuming automation is required by claim 1. Id. at 3–5. Setting aside whether claim 1 actually requires automated copying, as well as whether the alleged combination teaches or suggests automated copying, Petitioner’s articulated rationale to combine the teachings of Sandrew and Yuille does not address how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine their respective teachings not directed to automated copying. For instance, Petitioner fails to address why one would combine the teachings of Yuille with Sandrew to account for the following limitations: (1) the reshaping recited in claims 4, 6–10, and 24; (2) the moving and reshaping of a second mask comprising a polygon, curve, or both recited in claim 11; and (3) the polygon and Bezier curve animation recited in claims 12 and 13. See Pet. 27–34, 42–45. Because Petitioner’s articulated rationale is divorced from the specific limitations required by the claims, we determine Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that each of claims 4, 6–13, and 24 are obvious over the combination of Sandrew, Yuille, and various other references.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,286,941 - Plaid Technologies, Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc. And Yodlee.Com, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Aug 12, 2016 · IPR2016-00275 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Plaid’s rehearing request and maintained denial of institution because Plaid failed to show good cause to excuse late service and an incomplete, time-barred petition.
RulingsRehearing decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDenied
“treatment of the service issue. Our regulations state that a filing date will not be accorded to a Petition until, among other things, service is effected. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105(a), 42.106(a). The undisputed evidence put forth by Plaid indicates that it did not attempt to serve Yodlee with the Petition and supporting evidence until December 3, 2015. See Req. Reh’g 2; Ex. 1022 ¶ 9. In our Decision, we applied the regulations to the particular facts of this case and “determine[d] that December 3, 201[5], is the earliest date by which Plaid satisfied the service requirement for according the Petition a filing date.” Dec. 7 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105(a), 42.106(a)). Therefore, we maintained the initial filing date accorded to the Petition, which was one day after the statutory deadline under § 315(b), and we termed Plaid’s service activities to be “late service.”1 Dec. 6–7. Indeed, Plaid would have had no reason to file a motion to change the filing date had its actions not been “late.” Moreover, our Decision expressly stated that we did not need to “address whether, under appropriate circumstances, we have authority to grant an earlier filing date.” Dec. 8. Rather, our Decision focused on whether Plaid had shown good cause to waive the service requirements imposed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105(a) and 42.106(a). Id. at 8–10. Irrespective of the interplay among the relevant regulations and statutory deadline under § 315(b), we found that Plaid had not shown good cause and that it was not in the interests of justice to excuse Plaid’s late service under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) and (c)(3). See id. Among other reasons, we were not persuaded that waiting for potential changes from a declarant constituted good cause for Plaid to delay its filing and eventual service of the Petition and supporting evidence. See Dec. 8–9. We also weighed the potential” slip op. at 3
- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“for an abuse of discretion. 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. 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,199,077 - Square, Inc. v. Think Computer CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 9, 2016 · CBM2014-00159 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request insofar as it addressed the assertions in the decision, but denied it in all other respects; the prior analysis remained unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“A request for rehearing can only point out that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and will be reviewed for abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, as the moving party, the burden of persuasion falls on Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 1
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“are unpersuaded that they would alter our construction. For example, Patent Owner asserts that the claim limitation “any particular transaction” requires that “bidirectional account” be construed as allowing an account to function simultaneously as both a merchant account and a purchaser account under all transactions. We disagree, primarily because we are unclear as to what Patent Owner means by “under all transactions.” The relevant limitation of independent claim 1 reads “wherein the first account and the second account are adapted to selectively function as either a merchant or a purchaser account during any particular transaction.” We find that “[a]ny particular transaction” means any specific transaction, and is not necessarily limited to all transactions going forward, and find further that, logically, an account need only function in “merchant mode” or “purchaser mode” for that particular transaction; otherwise the account would be in the awkward position of performing a transaction with itself. Moreover, we are unclear as to why the same account cannot function as both, depending on the transaction, as an account is merely a repository within which funds are held, and whether the account is in “merchant mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds from the account) or “purchaser mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds to the account) does not alter the fundamental repository nature of the account itself. A similar analysis of the cited portions of the prosecution history and Specification yields similar conclusions. For example, Patent Owner’s discussion of the prosecution history on pages 4 and 5 of the Request for Rehearing do not amount to Patent Owner providing an explicit definition of “selectively function,” “during any particular transition,” or any other claim term as meaning “simultaneously”; nor do Patent Owner’s statements rise to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer with respect to the meaning of the claim terms.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“2. whether Dalzell fails to meet the claims’ requirements Based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction of “bidirectional accounts,” Patent Owner asserts that Dalzell does not disclose “bidirectional accounts.” Req. 7‒10. As we are unpersuaded, however, that the Board misapprehended or overlooked the items identified by Patent Owner in construing “bidirectional accounts,” we are unpersuaded that our analysis of Dalzell and “bidirectional accounts” set forth on pages 28 to 29 of the Final Written Decision should be modified in any way. See Dec. 29 (“[W]e find that a more logical reading of paragraph 59 of Dalzell is that a buyer, from a particular account, can add a seller feature to that particular account, without the need to create a whole new account. Such a finding is supported by extensive analysis and testimony by Dr. Sadeh-Koniecpol, with explicit citations to Dalzell, which we find credible, reasonable, and persuasive. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147-164 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 27, 49, 57, 61, 82, 85, 87, 132, 163, Figs. 1A, 1B).”)” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,396,808
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.