- 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 · 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 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01111 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of the petition as time-barred under § 315(b), because Amazon was a privy of several Petitioner Entities.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Here, Requesters simply disagree with the way in which we resolved the disputed privity issue in our Decision. Mere disagreement with our Decision is not proper basis for rehearing when we had considered and addressed Petitioner Entities’ arguments in the Decision itself. Requesters do not show that we misapprehended or overlooked an argument that they made in the Petition or Reply. Moreover, Requesters have not identified persuasively in the Request an erroneous interpretation of the law or factual findings not supported by substantial evidence such that the Decision should be modified.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we explained that the District Court’s ruling is on appeal, and Amazon has intervened in the appeal to continue its defense of Petitioner Entities’ interests in Amazon’s products. Id. at 29−30; Ex. 2017 (Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief); Ex. 2018 (Amazon’s Motion to Intervene). Thus, we concluded that the circumstances present here, which include the above-noted preexisting legal relationship between Amazon and some of the Petitioner Entities, have not changed and that Amazon and Petitioner Entities remain in privity. Dec. 23−24, 27−30, 35.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“concerns by evaluating whether one or more of the Taylor’s categories apply. Dec. 18−36. We separately and expressly analyzed three grounds— namely, Taylor’s second, third, and fifth categories identified above. Id. For example, the third Taylor category, addressing due process concerns, is whether a party not involved in a lawsuit nevertheless was represented adequately by someone with the same interests who was a party to the lawsuit. See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894; WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319. We determined that Amazon is a privy of several Petitioner Entities under this ground, as well as two additional grounds. Dec. 18−36.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,802,310 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01092 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of the petition as time-barred under § 315(b) because Petitioner entities remained in privity with Amazon.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated 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. U.S., 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 burden of showing that the Decision should be modified is on Petitioner entities, the parties challenging the Institution Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2018). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“particular, we explained that the District Court’s ruling is on appeal, and Amazon has intervened in the appeal to continue its defense of Petitioner entities’ interests in Amazon’s products. Dec. 18, 20–21; Exs. 2017–2018. Thus, we concluded that the circumstances present here, which include the above-noted preexisting legal relationship between Amazon and at least some of the Petitioner entities, have not changed, and that Amazon and Petitioner entities remain in privity. Dec. 18, 21.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDecided for patent owner
“the customer cases [, which include at least some Petitioner entities,3] are in privity with Amazon because they share the same interest in the unfettered use of Amazon’s web services, and Amazon adequately represented this interest in the [2011] Texas Action.” Ex. 2012, 14 (emphases added), quoted in Dec. 14. We do not understand Petitioner entities to be arguing that this determination was incorrect—Petitioner entities are the clear beneficiaries of the District Court’s ruling. In our Decision, we noted that the District Court’s articulation “is very similar, if not identical, to category three (adequate representation by the named party) in Taylor, where nonparty preclusion based on a privity relationship may be found.”” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“preclusion is, of course, subject to due process limitations,” and that “[a] person who was not a party to a suit generally has not had a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ the claims and issues settled in that suit.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 533 U.S. 880 (2008), 891–92. Thus, “[a]s informed by Taylor and other cases, the standards for the privity inquiry must be grounded in due process.” WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2018). According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, “[b]ecause nonparty preclusion risks binding those who have not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the Supreme Court has cautioned that there is a general rule against nonparty preclusion, subject to certain exceptions.” Id. (emphasis added); accord Taylor, 533 U.S. at 893 (“[T]he rule against nonparty preclusion is subject to exceptions.”). Taylor groups such exceptions into six categories, 533 U.S. at 893–95, three of which we analyzed in the Decision, at 13–27 (analyzing exceptions 2, 3, and” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,928,442 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01093 · APJ Denise M Pothier · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution because the petitioner entities remained in privity with time-barred Amazon under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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.” The abuse of discretion standard of review is the same heightened standard that federal appeals courts use to review district court factual findings. See PNY Techs., Inc. v. Phison Elecs. Corp., IPR2013-00472, Paper 16 at 2 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2014) (Final Written Decision) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“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.”)). A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2018). The party must identify specifically all matters that we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“entities’ interests in Amazon’s products. Id. at 19, 21–22; Exs. 2017–2018. Thus, we concluded that the circumstances present here, which include the above-noted preexisting legal relationship between Amazon and at least some of the Petitioner entities, have not changed and that Amazon and Petitioner entities remain in privity. Dec. 19, 22–23.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“Specifically, the District Court expressly found that “the defendants in the customer cases[, which include at least some Petitioner entities,3] are in privity with Amazon because they share the same interest in the unfettered use of Amazon’s web services, and Amazon adequately represented this interest in the [2011] Texas Action.” Ex. 2012, 14 (emphases added), quoted in Dec. 23. Petitioner entities are the clear beneficiaries of this ruling by the District Court, and we do not understand Petitioner entities to be arguing that this determination by the District Court was incorrect. In our 3 As stated in the Decision (Dec. 13), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Click-to-Call read § 315(b) “to apply petition-by-petition, not petitioner-by-petitioner, with the collection of petitioners on a single petition treated as a unit indistinguishable from each member of that collection” “for the one-year time bar.” Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in part). Decision, we noted that the District Court’s articulation “is very similar, if not identical, to [exception] three (adequate representation by the named party) in Taylor, where nonparty preclusion based on a privity relationship may be found.” Dec. 16. In the Decision, we further agreed with the District Court’s determination related to privity and reached the same conclusion upon considering the parties’ arguments and evidence. Id. at 23– 27. Thus, we considered whether denying the Petition was consistent with and grounded in due process, and concluded that it was, because, as analyzed in the Decision and discussed above, the record’s evidence met the third Taylor exception.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he federal common law of preclusion is, of course, subject to due process limitations,” and that “[a] person who was not a party to a suit generally has not had a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ the claims and issues settled in that suit.” Taylor, 533 U.S. at 891–92. Thus, “[a]s informed by Taylor and other cases, the standards for the privity inquiry must be grounded in due process.” WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2018). According to the Federal Circuit, “[b]ecause nonparty preclusion risks binding those who have not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the Supreme Court has cautioned that there is a general rule against nonparty preclusion, subject to certain exceptions.” Id. (emphasis added); accord Taylor, 533 U.S. at 893 (“[T]he rule against nonparty preclusion is subject to exceptions.”). Taylor groups such exceptions into six categories, 533 U.S. at 893–95, three of which we analyzed in the Decision. Dec. 13–28 (analyzing the second exception (pre-existing substantive legal relationship between the 2 Patent Owner filed a complaint against Amazon on December 8, 2011, in the Eastern District of Texas (“the 2011 Amazon lawsuit”), alleging infringement of the ’544 patent based on Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (“S3”). Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (citing PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Amazon Web Servs. LLC, No. 6:11-cv-00658 (E.D. Tex. dismissed on June 9, 2014)). parties), the third exception (adequate representation by the named party), and fifth exception (the nonparty acts as a proxy for the named party to re-litigate the same issues)). See also WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319 (summarizing Taylor’s “non-exhaustive list of considerations where nonparty preclusion would be justified”). In the Decision, we addressed Petitioner entities’ due process concerns by evaluating whether one or more of Taylor’s exceptions apply. For example, one of the Taylor exceptions (the third exception) addressing due process concerns considers whether a nonparty to a lawsuit was represented adequately by someone with the same interests who was a party to the lawsuit. See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894; WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319. As explained below, we considered and analyzed this exception in the Decision.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,945,544 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01091 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution for claims 1, 13, 25-27, 29, 30, 32, 34-36, and 166, finding no abuse of discretion.
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 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 Petitioner entities in turn.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“argument because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. Although Petitioner entities affirmatively discuss the Rackspace IPR in the Petition, they only do so in the context of explaining that the Petition is not a follow-on petition to the petition filed in the Rackspace IPR because it involves a different petitioner, different claims, different asserted grounds of unpatentability, and different arguments and evidence. See Pet. 12–13. Indeed, Petitioner entities do not address squarely Francisco’s disclosure of periodically varying the algorithm in the Petition, much less take the position that periodically varying the algorithm is an “optional” feature. See generally Pet. Petitioner entities’ failure to address Francisco’s periodically varying algorithm was the reason for our concern with the Petition, especially given that Petitioner entities bear the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dec. 24–25 (explaining that Petitioner entities “do[] not address Francisco’s disclosure of ‘periodically vary[ing]’ the algorithm . . . [which] is problematic as [Petitioner entities] bear[] the burden of demonstrating . . . unpatentability” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ex. 1003, 2:43)). We did, however, further explain that, even assuming that there may be an embodiment in Francisco in which the algorithm would not be varied (a fact that Petitioner entities did not establish), we would have still exercised our discretion to deny institution given the other shortcomings of the Petition. Id. at 25. Accordingly, our Decision Denying Institution did consider the possibility of embodiments where Francisco’s algorithm would not be varied, even though Petitioner entities did not address this issue squarely in the Petition itself.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of the claim construction arguments presented by Petitioner entities with respect to the claim term “message digest function” included arguing that the specification of the ’420 patent does not define this claim term explicitly, but that the specification “generally describes it as ‘reduc[ing] a data block B of arbitrary length to a relatively small, fixed size identifier.” Dec. 11 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”) 40). Petitioner entities also argued that the specification cites well-known cryptographic hash functions as examples of a “message digest function”—namely, MD4, MD5, and Secure Hash Algorithm. Id. For purposes of claim construction, Petitioner entities did not rely on the two related, but different, patents previously challenged by Rackspace and Apple that include claims reciting the claim terms “message digest function or hash function”; nor do Petitioner entities predicate their claim construction arguments presented and developed in the Petition on the positions taken by PersonalWeb in those three cases. See generally Pet. Notably, Petitioner entities do not even allege in the Request for Rehearing that our construction of the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” is incorrect. In any event, Petitioner entities do not direct us to, nor are we aware of, controlling precedent that prevents PersonalWeb from raising a claim construction argument with respect to the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” that appear in independent claim 25 of the ’420 patent merely because PersonalWeb chose not to raise the same claim construction argument when responding to previous challenges of two related, but different, patents. The cases relied on by Petitioner entities to support their new argument are distinguishable from the circumstances presented here. See Req. Reh’g 3. The Google case involved an inter partes review in which a Board panel ultimately adopted previous district court” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument presented by Petitioner entities because they only presented and developed this argument in the context of addressing claim 29, which depends from independent claim 25 and further recites “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits.” See Pet. 45–47. In essence, Petitioner entities request that we search through the entire Petition to find support for their theory that Francisco discloses the “message digest function or a hash function” recited in independent claim 25 because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Francisco’s system using a more complex hashing algorithm. If Petitioner entities desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, they should have provided citations to those portions with particularity. Moreover, the obviousness argument that Petitioner entities present with respect to dependent claim 29 appears to be setting forth an alternative ground based on proposed modifications to Francisco in view of the admitted prior art of the ’420 patent and secondary references. See Pet. 45– 47 (arguing that “Francisco meets th[e] limitation” of dependent claim 29, but further arguing that it would have been obvious to implement a more complex algorithm in Francisco because the ’420 patent “acknowledges that the MD5 hash algorithm . . . is prior art” and relying on Exhibit 1009 (Langer) and Exhibit 1010 (Browne) for teachings regarding MD5). The only statutory ground the Petition identifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) is obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. See id. at 5. The Request for Rehearing does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the MD5 algorithm to be taught or suggested by the teachings of Wyman or Francisco, as opposed to substituting the MD5 algorithm taught in alleged admitted prior art or secondary references for Francisco’s algorithm. Stated differently, the Request for Rehearing does not suggest that we should have granted institution on any grounds other than under § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. Accordingly, Petitioner entities have not persuaded us to modify the Decision Denying Institution with respect to claims 25 or 29.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1, 13, 25–27, 29, 30, 32, 34–36, and 166, finding no abuse of discretion.
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 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 Petitioner entities in turn.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument presented by Petitioner entities because they only presented and developed this argument in the context of addressing claim 29, which depends from independent claim 25 and further recites “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits.” See Pet. 42. In essence, Petitioner entities request that we search through the entire Petition to find support for their theory that Francisco discloses the “message digest function or a hash function” recited in independent claim 25 because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Francisco’s system using a more complex hashing algorithm. If Petitioner entities desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, they should have provided citations to those portions with particularity.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. As we explained in the Decision Denying Institution, the extent of the claim construction arguments presented by Petitioner entities with respect to the claim term “message digest function” included arguing that the specification of the ’420 patent does not define this claim term explicitly, but that the specification “generally describes it as ‘reduc[ing] a data block B of arbitrary length to a relatively small, fixed size identifier.” Dec. 11 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”) 35). Petitioner entities also argued that the specification cites well-known cryptographic hash functions as examples of a “message digest function”—namely, MD4, MD5, and Secure Hash Algorithm. Id. For purposes of claim construction, Petitioner entities did not rely on the two related, but different, patents previously challenged by Rackspace and Apple that include claims reciting the claim terms “message digest function or hash function”; nor do Petitioner entities predicate their claim construction arguments presented and developed in the Petition on the positions taken by PersonalWeb in those three cases. See generally Pet. Notably, Petitioner entities do not even allege in the Request for Rehearing that our construction of the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” is incorrect.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01490 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended “calibration cycle” or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision 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). III.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“calibration cycle.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 11:66–67 (emphasis added). We found that how the calibration cycle is referred to in this limitation (i.e., signal includes it) underscores that the calibration cycle is a feature of the calibration RF signal itself. Dec. 15–16. Rather than addressing this claim 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,916 B1 (issued Sept. 6, 2005) (Ex. 1003, “Warner”). 2 We do not address further Warner’s teachings because Petitioner’s arguments are predicated on our having misapprehended the meaning of “calibration cycle,” which we did not. In an inter partes review, the petitioner has the burden to show why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(citation omitted).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“signal includes a calibration cycle.” Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:5 (claim 1), 12:22– 54 (claim 7), 13:18–49 (claim 16), 13:63–14:30 (claim 22), 14:65–15:32 (claim 32), 15:46–62 (claim 38), 16:12–44 (claim 44), 17:8–37 (claim 53), 17:52–18:19 (claim 59), 18:52–19:18 (claim 69) (emphasis added). In denying the Petition, we found that Petitioner did not establish that the prior art disclosed or rendered obvious this limitation. Dec. 8–19. More specifically, we found that the calibration cycle relates to a feature of the calibration radio frequency (“RF”) signal (i.e., the signal includes), rather than simply requiring having a calibration process occur, as Petitioner submitted. Id. at 15–19. Our reasoning underlying this finding related to (A) the language of the limitation, (B) the language of dependent claims, and (C) the ’313 Patent’s Specification. Id.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,346,313 - General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01360 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the decisions denying institution in all five proceedings, concluding it had not abused its discretion or overlooked any issue.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. Requests for Rehearing A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise 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).” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for patent owner
“prejudices to Patent Owner into account. Thus, factor 3 is directed to Petitioner’s potential benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as our institution decisions on the first-filed petitions, prior to its filing of follow-on petitions. As discussed in our Decisions Denying Institution, we are concerned here by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in follow-on petitions. See Dec. 11. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.14 All other factors aside, this is unfair to patent” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for patent owner
“of the seven factors weigh against institution. Petitioner disputes our findings on the issue of whether Petitioner “should have known” of the art asserted in the follow-on petitions under factor 2. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization that invariably factor 2 could not be met because “patents or printed publications” necessarily “must be locatable by a reasonably diligent search.” Req. Reh’g 8. The relevant issue under factor 2 is not, as Petitioner has framed it, whether the prior art references relied on in the follow-on petitions constitute printed publications, but whether they could have been found with reasonable diligence. Thus, even for printed publications, a petitioner is free to explain why a reasonably diligent search could not have uncovered the newly applied prior art. See Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC, IPR2015-00873, slip op. at 6 (Sept. 16, 2015) (Paper 8) (describing “[w]hat a petitioner ‘could have raised,’” as including “prior art which a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover.”). Here, the record is devoid of any explanation why Petitioner could not have found the newly asserted prior art in any earlier search(es) through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In the Replies to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses, Petitioner did not argue that there were any changed circumstances that reasonably justified its new prior art searches and associated filing of follow-on petitions. See Reply 1–5. In the Requests for Rehearing, however, Petitioner avers that denial of the first-filed petitions was “surprising” to it, because the Board treated the term “toner supply container” in the claim preamble as limiting. Req. Reh’g 10–11. We determine that the “surprising” argument is not entitled to consideration, because it was not included in the Replies, which we authorized in order to allow Petitioner to address Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses that raised the issues of impropriety of follow-on petitions and application of discretion under § 314(a).” slip op. at 20
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,909,094 - General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01359 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the institution denials in IPR2016-01357 through IPR2016-01361, finding no abuse of discretion or overlooked issue; it granted the request for an expanded panel.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. Requests for Rehearing A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise 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).” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for patent owner
“Our intent in formulating the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into account. Thus, factor 3 is directed to Petitioner’s potential benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as our institution decisions on the first-filed petitions, prior to its filing of follow-on petitions. As discussed in our Decisions Denying Institution, we are concerned here by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in follow-on petitions. See Dec. 11. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.14 All other factors aside, this is unfair to patent 14 The Board has addressed efficiency and potential prejudice induced by multiple petitions in multiple cases. See LG Electronics, slip op. at 12 (“The Board’s resources would be more fairly expended on first petitions rather than on a followon petition like the Petition in this case.”); Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8) (“[T]he four obviousness grounds are ‘second bites at the apple,’ which use our prior decision as a roadmap to remedy Butamax’s prior, deficient challenge. owners and is an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and other post-grant review processes. Considering other factors (i.e., factors 2, 4, and 5) allows us to assess and weigh whether a petitioner should have or could have raised the new challenges earlier.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for patent owner
“ii. Applying the Factors in These Cases As summarized above, supra Section II.B.2, we find that, in these cases, six of the seven factors weigh against institution. Petitioner disputes our findings on the issue of whether Petitioner “should have known” of the art asserted in the follow-on petitions under factor 2. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization that invariably factor 2 could not be met because “patents or printed publications” necessarily “must be locatable by a reasonably diligent search.” Req. Reh’g 8. The relevant issue under factor 2 is not, as Petitioner has framed it, whether the prior art references relied on in the follow-on petitions constitute printed publications, but whether they could have been found with reasonable diligence. Thus, even for printed publications, a petitioner is free to explain why a reasonably diligent search could not have uncovered the newly applied prior art. See Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC, IPR2015-00873, slip op. at 6 (Sept. 16, 2015) (Paper 8) (describing “[w]hat a petitioner ‘could have raised,’” as including “prior art which a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover.”). Here, the record is devoid of any explanation why Petitioner could not have found the newly asserted prior art in any earlier search(es) through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412; see also AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) (Paper 12) (“[P]arties are not permitted to request, and panels do not authorize, panel expansion.”). Our standard operating procedures, however, provide the Chief Judge with discretion to expand a panel to include more than three judges. PTAB SOP 1, 1–3 (§§ II, III) (Rev. 14); see id. at 1 (introductory language explaining that the Director has delegated to the Chief Judge the authority to designate panels under 35 U.S.C. § 6); see also In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (providing that Congress “expressly granted the Commissioner the authority to designate expanded Board panels made up of more than three Board members.”). The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party in a post-grant review. Id. at 3–4; see also Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Case IPR2014-00319, slip op. at 2 n.1 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (Paper 20) (expanded panel) (per curiam). The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,909,094
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.