- Keeper Security, Inc. v. Cumberland Systems LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2017 · CBM2017-00057 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–19 because Petitioner did not show that the patent qualified as a covered business method patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that the ’647 patent “claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service,” to qualify as a covered business method patent. As we explained above, Secure Axcess requires a challenged patent to “have a claim that contains . . . a financial activity element.” Secure Axcess, 848 F.3d at 1381 (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to point to any element of claims of the ’647 patent that it contends meets the “financial activity element” required by Secure Axcess. Instead, it merely points to statements in the specification regarding potential applications for the claimed cryptographic algorithm. At best, Petitioner argues that the claimed encryption method can be for financial matters, such as securing e-commerce transactions, but this is not sufficient after the Federal Circuit’s guidance in both Unwired Planet and Secure Axcess. See id. Petitioner has simply failed to identify anything in the claims that are financial in nature.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,023,647 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,323,980 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Technologies Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2017 · IPR2017-00990 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Comcast did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7–22 and 74 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“representing an operational state of the controlled computing device” turns, at least in part, on the scope and meaning of the term “state table.” In the specification of the ’281 patent, the terms SST and DST are used interchangeably to describe item 230 illustrated in Figure 3 (i.e., a state table). Compare Ex. 1201, 13:57–60, with id. at 28:41–49. The specification explicitly defines an SST as “[a] logical table consisting of rows of [Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value, Current Value] that represents the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a Service.” Id. at 8:53–56. By identifying the term SST amongst the list of terms that are discussed following the statement “[t]he detailed description that follows uses the terminology defined below” (id. at 6:20–21 (emphasis added)), the specification sets forth an explicit definition for the term SST with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Notably, nothing in the specification of the ’281 patent contradicts the definition of the term SST identified above or suggests another meaning for this term. For instance, the specification discloses that “SST layouts are logically specified in terms of rows of [Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value]. The actual instances of a SST would also include a Current Value field in every row.” Ex. 1201, 14:37–40. The specification also discloses the following: [an SST] logically consists of rows of: Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value, Current Value[.] Although entries of the [SST] in UPnP consist of these five items, the state table alternatively can contain fewer or additional items. Generally, each entry will minimally consist of a Variable name or identifier, and its current value. Id. at 16:12–18. According to the specification, representing Services in this way “ensures that the state of a Service is easily available in a common way to multiple User Control Points.” Id. at 16:44–46. In summary, we determine for purposes of this Decision that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “state table” is “a logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current value that represent the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a service or device,” which is consistent with the explicit definition of the term SST and other descriptions of a state table in the specification of the ’281 patent. We further clarify that, based on the plain language of independent claims 7, 11, 17, 18, and 20, the claimed “state table” includes content that “represent[s] an operational state of the controlled computing device.”” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“accounts for “a state table . . . representing an operational state of the controlled computing device,” as recited in independent claim 20. Accordingly, Comcast has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that the subject matter of this independent claim would have been obvious over the teachings of Ludtke ’241. 4. Claim 74 By virtue of its dependency, claim 74 includes the same limitations as independent claim 20. Therefore, for the same reason discussed above with respect to independent claim 20, Comcast has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that the subject matter of dependent claim 74 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ludtke ’241.” slip op. at 21
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Comcast relies on for the recited “a state table . . . representing an operational state of the controlled computing device,” we agree with Rovi that Ludtke ’241 does not “expressly show[]” any of the data structures “in the form of a ‘table,’” as Comcast contends. See Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Pet. 29). As explained above in Section II.A, we disagree with Comcast’s proposed construction of “state table” as simply “a data structure regarding the current state of a device.” Instead, we have construed the term “state table” for purposes of this Decision as “a logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current value that represent the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a service or device.” Under the proper construction, none of the data structures in Ludtke ’241 cited by Comcast (i.e., those in Figures 5, 7A, 7B, and 8), either individually or collectively, meet the claim limitation because they are not in the form of a logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current value. On the current record, we also agree with Rovi that Comcast’s other arguments are conclusory and do not establish that Ludtke ’241 renders obvious “a state table . . . representing an operational state of the controlled computing device,” as recited in independent claim 20. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Pet. 29–30). Comcast’s contention that the format of state data “is a matter of design choice to organize the status information for ease of use” does not support an obviousness conclusion because it fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced any or all of Ludtke ’241’s hierarchical data structures with a state table containing rows and columns. See Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motive Power, Inc., 636 F. App’x 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) (“Merely stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious. [Petitioner] must offer a reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the specific design choice.”). Comcast’s argument that using a state table to represent an operational state of the controlled device is a matter of “design choice” is further undermined by explicit statements in Ludtke ’241 that its system eliminates the need for state tables. See Ex. 1202, 5:32–36 (“All issues such as state transitions and inter-control dependencies are handled automatically. . . by the target device independently of the intelligent controller responsibility. The present invention removes all requirements for items such as state transition tables and their execution environment. . . .”); 10:19–20 (“All concerns regarding the state transition. . . are handled inside of the target device.”); 17:30–31 (“In operation, the intelligent controller is not burdened with keeping state tables . . . .”). Notably, neither Comcast nor its declarant, Dr. Lippman, addresses these statements in Ludtke ’241. See Pet. 27–30; Ex. 1212 ¶¶ 66– 69.” slip op. at 19
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,725,281 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Technologies Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2017 · IPR2017-00994 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Comcast did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 7–22 and 74 obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in Rovi’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Comcast would prevail in challenging claims 7–22 and 74 of the ’281 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ludtke ’069 teaches or suggests “a state table . . . representing an operational state of the controlled computing device,” as recited in independent claim 20. First, we agree with Rovi that Comcast fails to establish that the “self-describing information” in Ludtke ’069 teaches a “state table.” See Prelim. Resp. 18. As explained above in Section II.A, we disagree with Comcast’s proposed construction of “state table” as simply “a data structure regarding the current state of a device.” Instead, we have construed the term “state table” for purposes of this Decision as “a logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current value that represent the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a service or device.” Therefore, even if we accept Comcast’s unsupported premise that entries of the VCR’s operational status in the self-describing information are in the form of a data structure in Ludtke ’069, Comcast fails to show that such a data structure is a “state table” as recited in independent claim 20 (i.e., a logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current value).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“representing an operational state of the controlled computing device” turns, at least in part, on the scope and meaning of the term “state table.” In the specification of the ’281 patent, the terms SST and DST are used interchangeably to describe item 230 illustrated in Figure 3 (i.e., a state table). Compare Ex. 1601, 13:57–60, with id. at 28:41–49. The specification explicitly defines an SST as “[a] logical table consisting of rows of [Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value, Current Value] that represents the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a Service.” Id. at 8:53–56. By identifying the term SST amongst the list of terms that are discussed following the statement “[t]he detailed description that follows uses the terminology defined below” (id. at 6:20–21 (emphasis added)), the specification sets forth an explicit definition for the term SST with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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;2 and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). We analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,725,281 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Technologies Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2017 · IPR2017-00992 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Comcast did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7–22 and 74 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in Rovi’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Comcast would prevail in challenging claims 7–22 and 74 of the ’281 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“representing an operational state of the controlled computing device” turns, at least in part, on the scope and meaning of the term “state table.” In the specification of the ’281 patent, the terms SST and DST are used interchangeably to describe item 230 illustrated in Figure 3 (i.e., a state table). Compare Ex. 1401, 13:57–60, with id. at 28:41–49. The specification explicitly defines an SST as “[a] logical table consisting of rows of [Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value, Current Value] that represents the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a Service.” Id. at 8:53–56. By identifying the term SST amongst the list of terms that are discussed following the statement “[t]he detailed description that follows uses the terminology defined below” (id. at 6:20–21 (emphasis added)), the specification sets forth an explicit definition for the term SST with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Notably, nothing in the specification of the ’281 patent contradicts the definition of the term SST identified above or suggests another meaning for this term. For instance, the specification discloses that “SST layouts are logically specified in terms of rows of [Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value]. The actual instances of a SST would also include a Current Value field in every row.” Ex. 1401, 14:37–40. The specification also discloses the following: [an SST] logically consists of rows of: Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value, Current Value[.] Although entries of the [SST] in UPnP consist of these five items, the state table alternatively can contain fewer or additional items. Generally, each entry will minimally consist of a Variable name or identifier, and its current value.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Comcast relies on for teaching “a state table . . . representing an operational state of the controlled computing device,” we agree with Rovi that Comcast has not pointed to any disclosure in Dara-Abrams of a data structure in the form of a table. See Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Pet. 27–28). As explained above in Section II.A, we disagree with Comcast’s proposed construction of “state table” as simply “a data structure regarding the current state of a device.” Instead, we have construed the term “state table” for purposes of this Decision as “a logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current value that represent the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a service or device.” Under the proper construction, none of the data structures in Dara-Abrams identified by Comcast, either individually or collectively, meet the claim limitation because they are not in the form of a logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current value.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art;2 and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). We analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,725,281 - General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01361 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted the expanded-panel request but denied rehearing, leaving in place the discretionary denial of institution in all five follow-on petitions.
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 otherInstitution denied
“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. We recognize that there may be circumstances where multiple petitions by the same petitioner against the same claims of a patent should be permitted, and that such a determination is dependent on the facts at issue in the case. The factors set forth above, in our view, represent a formulation of relevant considerations that permit the Board to assess the potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes review process and the fundamental fairness of the process for all parties. We recognize, also, that additional factors may arise in other cases for consideration, where appropriate. However, the factors set forth above, at the very least, serve to act as a baseline of factors to be considered in our future evaluation of follow-on petitions.” slip op. at 17
- 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 the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 3 (§ III.A). For example, an expanded panel may be appropriate when “[t]he proceeding or AIA Review involves an issue of exceptional importance.” Id. (§ III.A.1). In these cases, the Chief Judge has considered whether expansion is warranted, and has decided to expand the panel due to the exceptional nature of the issues presented.4 As we discuss further below, follow-on petitions have been at issue in multiple cases before the Board. The Chief Judge has determined that an expanded panel is warranted to provide a discussion of factors that are considered in the exercise of the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,909,094 - 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 - General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01358 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the institution denials in five follow-on petitions, concluding that its discretionary denials under § 314(a) were not an abuse of discretion.
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 otherInstitution denied
“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. We recognize that there may be circumstances where multiple petitions by the same petitioner against the same claims of a patent should be permitted, and that such a determination is dependent on the facts at issue in the case. The factors set forth above, in our view, represent a formulation of relevant considerations that permit the Board to assess the potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes review process and the fundamental fairness of the process for all parties. We recognize, also, that additional factors may arise in other cases for consideration, where appropriate. However, the factors set forth above, at the very least, serve to act as a baseline of factors to be considered in our future evaluation of follow-on petitions.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“As we discussed above, § 314(a) recites “may not” when referring to authorization for inter partes review, and does not specify any particular Allowing similar, serial challenges to the same patent, by the same petitioner, risks harassment of patent owners and frustration of Congress’s intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011).”); Conopco, slip op. at 5 (“We are not persuaded that we erred by adopting a more flexible approach that assesses each case on its particular facts to achieve a result that promotes the efficient and economical use of Board and party resources, and reduces the opportunity for abuse of the process.”); Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Tech., LLC, Case CBM2015-00047, slip op. at 13 (PTAB June 15, 2015) (Paper 7) (“Moreover, a decision on a petition . . . is not simply part of a feedback loop by which a petitioner may perfect its challenges through a subsequent filing.”). circumstance in which review must be authorized. That means institution of review is committed to the Director’s discretion, which, in turn, has been delegated to the Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Similarly, under § 325(d), whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office” is an issue that “may” be taken into account in considering institution, also manifesting the discretionary nature of application of § 325(d). As such, § 325(d) is not intended to be the sole factor in the exercise of discretion under § 314(a). We, therefore, do not agree with Petitioner that our Decisions Denying Institution conflict with the “express wording” of § 325(d), or render the aforementioned provision superfluous or meaningless. We also do not agree that the legislative history indicates an intent to limit discretion under § 314(a), such that it is subordinate to or encompassed by § 325(d). Additionally, although the legislative history reflects recognition of a desire for a “safety valve” to alleviate backlog, it does not limit the exercise of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to only circumstances in which there is a high volume of pending proceedings. See 157 CONG. REC. S1377 (Mar. 8, 2011). In any event, no such restriction appears in the language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and we decline to read into 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) such a restriction.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“In these cases, the Chief Judge has considered whether expansion is warranted, and has decided to expand the panel due to the exceptional nature of the issues presented.4 As we discuss further below, follow-on petitions have been at issue in multiple cases before the Board. The Chief Judge has determined that an expanded panel is warranted to provide a discussion of factors that are considered in the exercise of the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,046,820
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.