• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. / Toshiba Corporation et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2015-01499 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were obvious over Satou and Noguchi.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “5. Summary Based on the record before us, SDC has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that claims 1–9 would have been obvious over the combination of Satou and Noguchi because SDC does not provide a sufficient rationale to combine the respective teachings of these asserted references. III. CONCLUSION Taking into account the arguments presented in Gold Charm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that SDC would prevail in challenging claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable under § 103(a). IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “On the present record, we are not persuaded that SDC has articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi. With respect to SDC’s assertion that the teachings of Satou and Noguchi are capable of being combined because both of these references solve the same problem using essentially the same structure, this assertion, at best, indicates that Satou and Noguchi are analogous art to each other. Merely asserting that these prior art references are analogous art to each other, however, does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. With respect to SDC’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi, this assertion lacks a convincing rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Noguchi for guidance as to how these components disclosed in Satou should be re-configured in the manner required by independent claim 1. Based on this assertion, we understand SDC to argue that the components disclosed in Satou’s active matrix substrate account for all the features required by independent claim 1, but these components are not configured in the same manner required by this claim. We further understand SDC to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi in order to achieve the particular configuration of features required by independent claim 1. Without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“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.”’).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We also are not persuaded by the supporting testimony of Mr. Credelle regarding SDC’s rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because it essentially repeats the arguments advanced by SDC in its Petition. Compare Pet. 38–40, with Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76, 77. For instance, Mr. Credelle testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because they solve the same problem using essentially the same structure. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:52– 56; Ex. 1004, 2:38–41). Similar to our explanation above, simply demonstrating that these prior art references are analogous art to each other does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Mr. Credelle also testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76. Similar to our explanation above, without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing, 840 F.2d at 907.” slip op. at 17

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,211,534
• Toshiba Corporation / Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01479 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he use of the term ‘backlight’ rather than simply ‘light’ indicates that something is being illuminated from behind.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s proposed constructions (Pet. 13–16) are unreasonably broad insofar as they do not account for the use of the term “backlight.” We also agree with Patent Owner (see id.) that it is clear in the context of the ’833 patent that the recited backlights are in a liquid crystal display apparatus. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (words used in a claim are not construed in a “lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings”); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976)). Petitioner, and its expert Dr. Silzars, recognize in their statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art that the relevant art here is “display technologies.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. Notably, however, despite Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Silzars’ opinions that “[t]he alleged invention boils down to a method for minimizing the electrical noise generated when simultaneously driving multiple lights,” that the “‘liquid crystal display’ modifier” in the preambles of the challenged claims “merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention” (Pet. 20–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–59), and that “there is no structure that is specific to LCDs recited in the body of any of the claims,” neither Petitioner nor Dr. Silzars identifies any context in which backlights would be employed by those of ordinary skill in the art of display technologies, other than in an LCD. Accordingly, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “backlight” is “a lamp or set of lamps that illuminates a liquid crystal display from behind.” Because the claims already explicitly define the relationship between the “first backlight” and the “second backlight”—for example, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the second backlight is “driven simultaneously with said first backlight” and “ha[s] an oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight”—we discern no need to provide separate interpretations of “first backlight” and “second backlight.” We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to limit the “second backlight” to include “all remaining lamps of the . . . apparatus that are not in the first backlight.” Because independent claims 1 and 16 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” those claims do not exclude additional, unrecited elements and method steps, respectively. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03 (9th ed., Rev. 07.2015 Nov. 2015). 2. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘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 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)

    “B. Anticipation and Obviousness “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed[,] and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)

    “A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “D. Remaining Contentions The above determination makes it unnecessary to resolve any other disputes, including Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to list all of the real parties in interest. See Prelim. Resp. 4–14; Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9; Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioners’ Reply, Paper 10.” slip op. at 33

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,417,833
• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2014-01208 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21–23, 25, 26, 28, 32–35, 37, 40, and 44–46 are unpatentable; claim 24 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “§ 42.64(c). Patent Owner seeks to expunge (vice exclude) the Broggi Declaration (Ex. 1033) because it was not timely served in response to Patent Owner’s first set of objections. See id. at 12; Opp. Reply 1–2.; Ex. 1036, 2; Ex. 2015; 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). As the moving party, Patent Owner bears the burden of proof. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). We address first Exhibit 1033 and then the remaining exhibits in reverse chronological order of their filing. 1. Broggi Declaration (Ex. 1033) As explained above, the Broggi Declaration is not supplemental evidence because the objection to which it was served in response was not proper. Because the Broggi Declaration is not evidence, supplemental evidence, or supplemental information, we expunge it.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “4. Summary Broggi is a printed article titled “Multi-Resolution Vehicle Detection using Artificial Vision.” The first page makes reference to the 2004 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium held at the University of Parma in Parma Italy on June 14–17, 2004, and includes a copyright date of 2004 that is consistent with this information. Broggi is not marked with any limitations regarding dissemination. Dr. Frahm, as a person who has chaired an IEEE conference and regularly attended IEEE conferences, states that it is his experience that IEEE papers, such as Broggi, that are presented are made publically available at that conference as is indicated on the face of the paper. Although he did not attend the Symposium, the Senior Director of Publishing Technologies for IEEE, Mr. Grenier, states that IEEE records indicate that Broggi was published and presented as part of the proceedings on the date of the Symposium. The Office Manager of the Internet Archive, Mr. Butler, provides records that indicate that Broggi was posted to a public website no later than October 12, 2004.” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Frahm, provided testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 43–48. Although the level of skill in the art is not discussed in the Petition, Dr. Frahm acknowledged that obviousness is viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and applied that standard to his evaluations. Id. ¶¶ 28–29. That is, Dr. Frahm’s evaluations of the grounds of unpatentability based on obviousness is based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, and this analysis is cited and explained in the Petition. address the merits of the level of skill in the art provided. The significance of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the role it plays in an obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). Patent Owner’s assertion fails to address how the level of skill in the art impacted the obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 35

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response argued that we should deny the Petition based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 2, 7–12. We considered this argument and declined to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. See Dec. 12–15. Patent Owner’s current argument adds nothing to 30 We presume the second citation, which is to “§ 315(d)” is a typographical error and “§ 325(d)” was intended. the Petition on that basis.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 7,991,522 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,991,522
• Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. / Seagate Technology LLC v. Enova Technology Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01178 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable under §103 over Sullivan and SATA Standard because their combination would have made the claimed encryption and bypass features obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “SATA device, we find persuasive Petitioner’s explanation that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to distinguish between Data FISes that carry user data and Data FISes that carry control, command, or status information, by utilizing the association in SATA Standard between a given command and the type of information in a resulting Data FIS. See Pet. 29, 31; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 30–35, 50, 101–03, 154; Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree that Sullivan’s description of the filter module teaches away from causing certain FISes to bypass the cryptographic engine. Sullivan teaches that the filter module may be “configured to pass only a any one of encrypting, decrypting, or bypassing (see Tr. 106:23–108:13), the parties appear to be in agreement that these limitations require that the controller is capable of instructing the cryptographic engine to bypass an FIS. Pet. 37–38; PO Resp. 45–46. predetermined allowed set of commands, status and other information or categories of information.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Sullivan teaches that “[t]ypical allowed commands will be read, write, and other commands associated with data or memory access and storage.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Long and Dr. Conte agree that information that is allowed by Sullivan’s filter is transmitted to the cryptographic core for encryption or decryption. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 114; Ex. 2061 ¶ 76. Sullivan further teaches that, “[a]lternatively or additionally, the filter module may include logic to reject a predetermined set of information or categories of information, e.g. to reject certain types of data, address pointers, and so on.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55.4 Based on this disclosure, Patent Owner contends that Sullivan’s filter only permits two outcomes: (1) passing packets to the cryptographic module for encryption; or (2) rejecting them. PO Resp. 47 (citing Ex. 2061 ¶ 122). However, because Sullivan describes the rejection feature as alternative or additional, we find Dr. Long’s description of how a skilled artisan would have understood these teachings to be more credible. Dr. Long testifies that Sullivan’s paragraph 55 “reminds us there’s a number of ways to do this, look-up table, formula logic, whatever. It discloses the idea of you can pass some subset of commands to the encryption unit, and you can block other set of commands. It’s silent on the intersection of those two sets.” Ex. 2060, 74:3–8. Elaborating further, Dr. Long testifies: 4 Sullivan does not state expressly what becomes of the information that is rejected. Dr. Conte testifies that it is “rejected and filtered out.” Ex. 2061 ¶ 122. Dr. Long appears to be in agreement that information blocked by the rejection feature is not processed further. See Ex. 2060, 74:17–18 (testifying that “[t]here is a set of things that are blocked, which means they don’t go anywhere”).” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “To be accorded substantial weight, there must be a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “Nexus” is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The burden of showing that there is a nexus lies with the Patent Owner. Id.; see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeOther

    “The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. Patent Owner, as the moving party, has the burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). This burden includes showing that the information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public policy interest in having an open record in inter partes reviews. In reviewing the “confidential” version of these exhibits, we note that each exhibit has been heavily redacted, leaving only a handful of lines per each exhibit. These un-redacted portions do not provide sufficient detail to verify the contents of these exhibits. Thus, we cannot confirm Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the confidentiality of these exhibits, nor can we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal for good cause. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 2042, 2043, and 2044.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 7,900,057 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,900,057
• Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. / Seagate Technology LLC v. Enova Technology Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01449 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 40–53 are unpatentable under § 103 over Sullivan and SATA Standard because the combination renders the claimed cryptographic SATA operations obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The Decision to Institute did not provide express constructions for any of the terms of the challenged claims, noting that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Dec. to Inst. 6–7 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Patent Owner’s Response does not propose any claim constructions, asserting instead that “even under the claim constructions proposed by Petitioner[], the references of record do not render any claims of the ’057 Patent obvious.” PO Resp. 15. The parties’ arguments in this proceeding following the Decision to Institute do not provide any reason to deviate from the claim construction approach in the Decision to Institute. Based on the record before us, we need not provide express constructions for any claim terms.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the field of this invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two years of experience in a relevant field, or equivalent knowledge and experience. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 16–17). Patent Owner’s Response does not address specifically the level of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Thomas M. Conte, testifies that because the claims of the ’057 patent describe a cryptographic apparatus, which is a computer hardware device, one of ordinary skill in the art should have experience with the hardware of devices and systems. Ex. 2061 ¶ 18. Dr. Conte’s testimony does not persuade us that hardware encryption experience is a prerequisite for the level of ordinary skill, such that persons having a software background or a degree in computer science are excluded from being persons of ordinary skill. See id. Although the Specification of the ’057 patent and the challenged claims disclose a “cryptographic device,” the ’057 patent teaches that “[t]he above-described embodiments may be implemented in hardware and/or software form, as desired.” Ex. 1001, 12:10–11. After considering the evidence of record, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’057 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or computer science, and at least two years of experience.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “adequately for the disclosure in Sullivan that is broader and more general. For example, in the Background section, Sullivan describes that “[a] system is needed whereby transmission of data in a serial channel can be accomplished in-line and in real time, where the data and control information can be treated separately for both encryption purposes and for handling various types of attacks and covert processes embedded in or achieved by the transmitted information.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 6 (emphasis added); see also id. at ¶ 10 (“The control information, which may include commands and status information, can be subjected to filtering and rejecting operations by the encryption unit, to pass through only a predetermined set of commands and/or to reject a predetermined set of commands.”); id. at ¶ 55 (“[T]he filter module 730 may be configured as an information or command pass filter or blocking filter for any control information that may be included in the packet 700, whether or not in the header.”) (emphasis added); id. at claim 9 (“transmitting the encrypted information with the associated control information to the second device, where the associated control information is transmitted in an unencrypted form”). In view of these teachings, we agree with Petitioner that “Sullivan describes making encryption decisions based on the type of data and not simply the location of the data (e.g., in a header or in a payload).” Reply 8. Further, a skilled artisan would not have understood Sullivan’s teaching to strip out the header and encrypt the payload as a prescription for how each individual FIS should be treated when Sullivan is applied to a SATA device, because that encryption strategy would yield a non-functioning SATA device. It is undisputed that implementing Sullivan in a SATA device in this manner would result in a non-functional system, because doing so would result in encryption of payloads that should not be encrypted, thereby rendering the FISes unintelligible to the host or the peripheral device intended to process them. See PO Resp. 25; Reply 9. As summarized above, Patent Owner argues that this non-functionality demonstrates a flaw in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See PO Resp. 25. Yet, we view Patent Owner’s argument regarding non-functionality as detracting from the persuasiveness of Patent Owner’s contentions regarding how a skilled artisan would have understood Sullivan’s disclosure. In particular, it strains credulity that a skilled artisan would apply Sullivan in the manner Patent Owner urges when doing so would result in a non-functioning device. We agree with Petitioner that an artisan having ordinary skill and creativity would not have applied Sullivan’s teachings in such a simplistic and plainly counterproductive fashion. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also Reply 9–10 (citing In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp., 528 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). We further agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have recognized that “Sullivan teaches a flexible cryptographic device that can be implemented using a variety of data transfer protocols . . . and is designed to ‘accommodate[] whatever standard is used.’” Reply 8–9 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 50).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “However, because Sullivan describes the rejection feature as alternative or additional, we find Dr. Long’s description of how a skilled artisan would have understood these teachings to be more credible. Dr. Long testifies that Sullivan’s paragraph 55 “reminds us there’s a number of ways to do this, look-up table, formula logic, whatever. It discloses the idea of you can pass some subset of commands to the encryption unit, and you can block other set of commands. It’s silent on the intersection of those two sets.” Ex. 2060, 74:3–8. Elaborating further, Dr. Long testifies: 3 Sullivan does not state expressly what becomes of the information that is rejected. Dr. Conte testifies that it is “rejected and filtered out.” Ex. 2061 ¶ 122. Dr. Long appears to be in agreement that information blocked by the rejection feature is not processed further. See Ex. 2060, 74:17–18 (testifying that “[t]here is a set of things that are blocked, which means they don’t go anywhere”). There’s a set of things that are passed to the encryption unit. There is a set of things that are blocked, which means they don’t go anywhere. And a person of ordinary skill in the art would think this through, but there could be things that are in neither set. Id. at 74:16–21. In other words, Sullivan’s description of the filter module leaves open the possibility that some of the information will be neither passed for encryption nor rejected and discarded. Thus, Sullivan’s description of the filter module does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage a skilled artisan from causing certain FISes to bypass the cryptographic engine. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that passing a PIO Setup FIS without encrypting it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan implementing Sullivan’s teachings in view of SATA Standard. As discussed above in the context of the “associated with” limitation, we agree with Petitioner that Sullivan teaches that control information should not be encrypted or decrypted. For example, Sullivan’s claim 9 describes “transmitting the encrypted data with the associated control information to the second device, where the associated control information is transmitted in an unencrypted form.” Ex. 1002, claim 9. Further, Dr. Long testifies that a skilled artisan would have known that the PIO setup FIS contains control information. Ex. 1006 ¶ 82, 179. Accordingly, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to pass a PIO Setup FIS from device interface to host interface without encrypting it.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,900,057 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,900,057
• Arris Group, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2014-01191 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 59, 61, 74, 76, 78, and 87 are unpatentable under § 103 over Stone and Takashashi, with Shioda, Ohmi, or Garmon applied to dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Even under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms generally also are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “[an] education and/or experience in the field of optics” and “in the sub-field of thin-film filters.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner, such person would have, at a minimum, (1) more than three years of relevant work experience and hold a basic Bachelor’s degree, or (2) less than three years of relevant work experience, but hold a more advanced degree, such as a Masters or a Ph.D. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, or offer an alternative definition. See generally, PO Resp. Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Tomlinson, see Pet. 15–20, who testified that he is “an expert in the field of optical assemblies and . . . [has] been an expert in this field since prior to 1965.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 11. Dr. Tomlinson testified that he is “familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art” by virtue of his “work as a research assistant, scientist, researcher, supervisor of Ph.D. level researchers and engineers, and project manager.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶¶ 13–18 (wherein Dr. Tomlinson discusses the specifics of his work). We find Dr. Tomlinson is qualified to give an opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in the field of optics, and adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. Cf. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that to testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather “qualified in the pertinent art.”).” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art: “would not [have] use[d] a beveled end face for applications where reducing reflected power is not necessary because a beveled end face requires additional machining and, as illustrated by Stone’s Figure 6, makes connection to other fibers more problematic” and “would generally use a perpendicular end face as shown in Stone Figure 1 unless a particular application called for a beveled end face” (Ex. 1020 ¶ 23). We also credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Takashashi’s description of the benefits provided by a higher packing density, e.g., a reduction in the effect of ambient moisture on filter performance, to substitute one known method of thin film deposition – i.e., the “electron-beam deposition” of Stone – for another know method of thin film deposition – i.e. the reactive-ion plasma process of Takashashi – because the substitution would have yielded a favorable and predictable result. Namely, the combination of Stone and Takashashi would have yielded a thin-film filter with a higher packing density which was less susceptible to volumetric distortion of the film due to ambient moisture, as taught by Takashashi. Ex. 1003 ¶ 100.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, but are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the filter inefficiencies created by ambient moisture could be addressed adequately by merely beveling Stone’s filter/fiber end face, i.e., we are not persuaded that the ordinary artisan would not have been motivated to increase filter packing density in Stone’s optical assembly. As pointed out by Petitioner, Stone discloses that optical fibers having multilayer thin-films deposited directly on their end faces have advantageous properties, regardless of whether the filters are deposited on perpendicular fiber end faces or on beveled fiber end faces. See Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:60– 67). We further agree with Petitioner that Stone’s teaching of a preference for using a beveled end face is limited to “certain situations in which power would be reflected back into the waveguide in a problematic way” (id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:57–65)). Patent Owner has not argued, however, nor do we find any language in the claims or specification of the ’970 patent that supports a narrow reading of claim 59 as limited to an optical fiber assembly that is capable of use in an application in which reflected light is problematic. We credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art: “would not [have] use[d] a beveled end face for applications where reducing reflected power is not necessary because a beveled end face requires additional machining and, as illustrated by Stone’s Figure 6, makes connection to other fibers more problematic” and “would generally use a perpendicular end face as shown in Stone Figure 1 unless a particular application called for a beveled end face” (Ex. 1020 ¶ 23). We also credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Takashashi’s description of the benefits provided by a higher packing density, e.g., a reduction in the effect of ambient moisture on filter performance, to substitute one known method of thin film deposition – i.e., the “electron-beam deposition” of Stone – for another know method of thin film deposition – i.e. the reactive-ion plasma process of Takashashi – because the substitution would have yielded a favorable and predictable result. Namely, the combination of Stone and Takashashi would have yielded a thin-film filter with a higher packing density which was less susceptible to volumetric distortion of the film due to ambient moisture, as taught by Takashashi.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,222,970 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,222,970
• Toyota Motor Corporation v. Cellport Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01422 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims: claims 1–11 lacked a sufficient showing of the claimed network protocol converter structure, and claims 12–21 were denied as a second, delayed petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “network communication means” claim limitation. Claims 2, 6, and 8–11 depend from claim 1 and, thus, incorporate this limitation by way of dependence. A petition for inter partes review “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Because the “first standard network communication means” is a means-plus-function claim limitation, Petitioner is required to show that both the recited function of this claim limitation and the corresponding structure or an equivalent are present in the applied references. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A] challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.”). The Petition does not identify any structure in the applied references that is allegedly identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure of the “first standard network communication means” claim limitation, i.e., network protocol converter 26. Petitioner’s entire argument concerning the “first standard network communication means” of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, is reproduced below: Cao discloses a “first standard network communications means” (i.e., wireless Proxim radio link with base station) that uses Internet Protocol for “presenting information for transmission over the airlink in a first format that is acceptable to a first standardized network that includes the airlink” (i.e., TCP/IP format). See Ex. 1019 at 6; see also supra Section VIII.A.4. Pet. 40. Though Petitioner alleges that the “wireless Proxim radio link with base station” of Cao performs the recited function of the “first standard network communication means,” Petitioner does not compare the structure of the “wireless Proxim radio link with base station” of Cao to the structure of network protocol converter 26. Cited Section VIII.A.4 of the Petition similarly does not address the structure of the “wireless Proxim radio link with base station” of Cao. See Pet. 18–20. Thus, the Petition does not identify any structure in the applied references that is allegedly identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure of the “first standard network communication means” claim limitation. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition fails to show persuasively that the “first standard network communication means” claim limitation is found in the references that Petitioner relies upon with respect to claims 1–11. Thus, the information presented in the Petition is not sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claims 1–11 are unpatentable. 3.” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “The 4½ month delay between Petitioner’s first and second Petitions is problematic for several reasons. First, the timing of this Petition makes consolidation impractical, and, thus, frustrates the interest of judicial economy. The oral hearing in IPR2015-00633 is set for April 14, 2016. IPR2015-00633, Paper 12. Thus, it would not be practical to institute a second inter partes review and consolidate that proceeding with IPR2015- 00633. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). Assuming that Petitioner has shown here a reasonable likelihood that claims 12–21 are unpatentable, two separate trials would be necessary, requiring the parties, as well as the Board, to expend significant additional resources. Second, even if we were to institute a second inter partes review involving claims 12–21, Petitioner might be unable to “maintain” the second inter partes review upon issuance of a final written decision in IPR2015-00633. 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) provides that any final written decision in IPR2015-00633 on the patentability of claims 12–21 would preclude Petitioner from “maintain[ing] a proceeding before the Office . . . on any ground that the petition raised or reasonably could have raised during [the earlier] post-grant review.” Thus, instituting a second inter partes review may result in a significant waste of time and resources for the parties and for Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (“This part shall be construed to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”). Third, the timing of the second Petition raises the potential for gamesmanship. Petitioner did not file this Petition until one month after Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response in IPR2015-00633. The timing of the second Petition gave Petitioner the opportunity to preview the arguments set forth in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response in IPR2015- 00633. Petitioner also has not provided an adequate explanation for the 4½ month delay between the filing of this Petition and the filing of its previous Petition. Though Petitioner alleges that it was not aware of Cao “at the time it filed Petition No. 2015-00633” (Pet. 2), Petitioner does not state when and under what circumstances, during the 4½ months that preceded the filing of the current Petition, it became aware of Cao. Cao is a technical paper that was published by a major research university in the United States, and, thus, it is not clear on this record why Petitioner was unable to locate Cao at an earlier date. See Ex. 1019, 1. We further note that Petitioner has not identified any meaningful distinctions between the arguments regarding claims 12–21 in this Petition and the arguments Petitioner set forth in its earlier Petition. For instance, Petitioner does not explain in what ways the grounds asserted against claims 12–21 in this proceeding are superior to the grounds against the same claims and on the basis of which we instituted trial in IPR2015-00633. In view of the foregoing, we exercise our discretion and decline to” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Despite the rebuttable presumption, we do not construe “controller means” as a means-plus-function claim limitation. The presumption is overcome because the claim language does not link the “controller means” to a specific recited function. See York Prod., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Without a ‘means’ sufficiently connected to a recited function, the presumption in use of the word ‘means’ does not operate.”). In addition, the presumption is overcome when the claim specifies detailed structure sufficient to perform any recited or implicit function, e.g., controlling. See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.”); Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Each of independent claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 recites that the “controller means” includes the “processing means” and the “first standard network communication means.” As discussed herein, the processing means and the first standard network communication means are means-plus-function claim limitations that are defined in terms of specific structures disclosed in the Specification. Moreover, the recited “controller” is also a structure that is sufficient to perform any recited or implicit function of the “controller means.” The rebuttable presumption also is overcome because the controller means claim limitation is associated with these structures. Thus, in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, and consistent with the Specification (see Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:29, 6:11–37, 8:1–45), for purposes of this Decision, we construe “controller means” as “a controller.” 3.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “is a means-plus-function limitation is overcome because this limitation lacks an associated function. Prelim. Resp. 13. We agree. The grammatical structure of the claim and, in particular, the fact that the functional language cited by Petitioner appears immediately after the recitation of the “processing means” evidences an intent to associate this functional language with the “processing means” claim limitation. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “processing means” as a means-plus-function claim limitation having a recited function of “controlling the sending and receiving of said information using said wireless device between said first remote station and the vehicle.” “Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. The Specification of the ’074 Patent indicates that the sending and receiving of vehicle information between the remote station and the vehicle is controlled by processor 90 in conjunction with real time operating system 94. See Ex. 1001, 8:1–23, 13:54–56. Data memory 106 is not linked clearly to the recited function because data memory 106 merely stores information, and does not control the sending and receiving of information. See id. 8:45–58, 9:31–45, 10:58–64, 13:8–10, 23–26. Thus, the structure in the Specification that corresponds to the “processing means” is “processor 90 in conjunction with real time operating system 94.”” slip op. at 11

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,732,074
• NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01316 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that VESA P&D and VESA Flat Panel were publicly accessible printed publications, so claims 6–10 could not rely on them.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 6–10 of the ’724 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Petitioner does not explain adequately whether or how the VESA documents were made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” Lister, 583 F.3d at 1311. Instead, Petitioner merely asserts that “VESA is a well-known standards setting organization that promulgates standards relating to video in electronics.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58); id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75). As such, we determine that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the VESA documents are printed publications under § 102(b). See Lister, 583 F.3d at 1317 (burden is on the proponent to show the purported reference was publicly available). Therefore, based on the record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that either VESA P&D or VESA Flat Panel may be relied upon as prior art with respect to claims 6–10 of the ’724 patent.” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,804,724
• Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00736 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Corning’s rehearing request, leaving intact dismissal of the petitions because Corning Inc. and Corning Optical Communications LLC were unnamed real parties in interest.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner

    “proof on Petitioner.” Req. Reh’g. 9–10. As noted in our Decision, we placed the ultimate burden of proof, i.e., burden of persuasion, on Patent Owner, not Petitioner. Dec. 13–14 (stating that if “a patent owner raises the RPI issue after institution and after filing a response to the petition, and in the form of a motion . . . , the burden of proof is on the patent owner as the proponent of the motion”). As explained recently by the Federal Circuit, the “burden of persuasion ‘is the ultimate burden assigned to a party who must prove something to a specified degree of certainty,’ such as by a preponderance of the evidence.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s burden of persuasion, however, once it came forward with sufficient evidence indicating that Petitioner should have identified Corning Inc. and Corning NC as RPIs (as cited and discussed in Patent Owner’s Motion), a “shifting burden” came into play, i.e., a “burden of production” on Petitioner. Id. at 1379. To address that burden of production, Petitioner had an opportunity to “produc[e] additional evidence and present[] persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record” in its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. (citations omitted). It was in this capacity, only after determining that Patent Owner had made a sufficient showing regarding RPI, that we stated that Petitioner did not point “to credible evidence indicating that if interests of Corning Inc. and Petitioner ever diverged, Mr. Hulme and Mr. Vynalek, who are employees of Corning Inc. (Ex. 2100, 12– 14), would act in a matter contrary to Corning Inc.’s interests.” Dec. 22; Req. Reh’g. 9. Thereafter, based on all evidence before us, we concluded that Patent Owner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Corning NC and Corning Inc. should have been named as RPIs in these proceedings. Dec. 13–14, 16, 25. Thus, Petitioner does not persuade us that we impermissibly placed the burden of persuasion on Petitioner.” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,676,446
• Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00440 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Corning’s rehearing request, leaving in place dismissal of the petitions, termination of the reviews, and vacatur of the institution decisions for failure to identify all RPIs.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner

    “Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s burden of persuasion, however, once it came forward with sufficient evidence indicating that Petitioner should have identified Corning Inc. and Corning NC as RPIs (as cited and discussed in Patent Owner’s Motion), a “shifting burden” came into play, i.e., a “burden of production” on Petitioner. Id. at 1379. To address that burden of production, Petitioner had an opportunity to “produc[e] additional evidence and present[] persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record” in its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. (citations omitted). It was in this capacity, only after determining that Patent Owner had made a sufficient showing regarding RPI, that we stated that Petitioner did not point “to credible evidence indicating that if interests of Corning Inc. and Petitioner ever diverged, Mr. Hulme and Mr. Vynalek, who are employees of Corning Inc. (Ex. 2100, 12– 14), would act in a matter contrary to Corning Inc.’s interests.” Dec. 22; Req. Reh’g. 9. Thereafter, based on all evidence before us, we concluded that Patent Owner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Corning NC and Corning Inc. should have been named as RPIs in these proceedings. Dec. 13–14, 16, 25. Thus, Petitioner does not persuade us that we impermissibly placed the burden of persuasion on Petitioner.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsDenied

    “sufficient “good cause” exists to waive our rules to allow correction of the RPIs identified in the Petitions without a loss of original filing dates. Dec. 24–25 (citing Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-00039, slip op. at 13–18 (PTAB April 24, 2015) (Paper 18)). Petitioner’s incorrect determination of RPIs in its Petition, as argued in its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss and its Request now, “did not arise out of some mistake of fact.” Reflectix, Case IPR2015-00039, slip. op at 14 (Paper 18). Rather, Petitioner asserted that it “designated itself as the only RPI in good faith at the time the Petitions were filed, based on the guidance in the [Trial Practice Guide] before the Board’s RPI decisions cited in the Decision even existed.” Req. Reh’g. 12, 14–15. In other words, Petitioner “misunderstood the law as it applies to the RPI determination.” Reflectix, Case IPR2015-00039, slip. op at 14 (Paper 18). We agree with our colleagues in Reflectix that the Trial Practice Guide provides notable guidance, “as it devotes over a page of the Federal Register to discussing RPI and privity, and cites to precedent including the Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell.” Id. at 14–15 (citing 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759 (citing 553 U.S. 880 (2008)). Furthermore, a number of relevant Board decisions concerning RPI had issued by March 2, 2015, when we authorized Patent Owner to file its Motion for Additional Discovery regarding whether Corning Inc. and Corning NC should have been listed as RPIs. Paper 31. Petitioner did not request authorization to correct its Petitions thereafter, but instead suggested the possibility of correction in its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss. Opp. 1, 22, 23, 25. Our determination that Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss was timely did not undercut the significance of Petitioner’s actions here. Req. Reh’g. 14–15. We are not persuaded, given the facts of this case, that Petitioner’s failure to name all RPIs in its Petitions, and its failure to request authorization to correct its Petitions regarding RPIs during trial, constitute a type of “error” that warrants permitting correction at this stage, without altering filing dates of the Petitions, even assuming no evidence of bad faith by Petitioner exists. Req. Reh’g. 15, 14. In addition, regardless of whether Petitioner “erred” when preparing its Petitions, Petitioner continued to maintain strongly its position regarding RPIs, even after it had access to all facts and evidence before us when we issued our Decision, thereby indicating that its position was not an “error” on Petitioner’s part, but rather a strategic position. As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) (emphasis added), a petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if— . . . the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” In view of Petitioner’s actions here, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in determining the appropriate remedy here was to grant Patent Owner’s Motions to Dismiss, terminate the instant proceedings, and vacate our Decisions on Institution.” slip op. at 12

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,597,041

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.