- Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claim 3 unpatentable as obvious over Eray-WO799, revising the final written decision’s outcome for that claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“As stated in our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art and found that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Pet. 8; PO Resp. 18). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Daniel van der Weide, supported Petitioner’s definition, which was adopted for this proceeding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25. Dr. van der Weide defined himself as “a person of more than ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe” because “[b]y 2010, [he] held a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and [he] had at least” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Aug 10, 2023 · PGR2022-00023 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Rehearing
On Patent Owner’s rehearing request, the Board held claim 25 unpatentable under § 112(a) because it depends from claim 14, which lacks written description support.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We therefore agree with Petitioner that we overlooked the correct dependency of claim 25. Claim 25, as a claim dependent from claim 14, lacks written descriptive support because claim 25 fails to cure the absence of descriptive support for claim 14.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“In the Final Written Decision, we determined that claim 14 lacked descriptive support. We noted that Claim 14, in particular, recites a GDC-0199 dosing regimen “compris[ing] a dose of 20 mg per day for one week, a dose of 50 mg per day for one week, a dose of 100 mg per day for one week, a dose of 200 mg of GDC-0199 per day for one week, and a dose of 400 mg per day.” Unlike for claim 1, such disclosure is not found in a single example, but results from picking and choosing three separate selections from column 24. “The written description requirement is not met when, as here, the specification provides at best disparate disclosures that an artisan might have been able to combine in order to make the claimed invention.” Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., 2021 WL 2944592 *4 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352.)” slip op. at 3
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,993,942 - Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Shockwave Medical, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 2, 2023 · IPR2019-00405 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claims 1–4 and 6–17 unpatentable as obvious, claim 5 not shown unpatentable, and denied both motions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingGranted in part
“preponderance of evidence that claims 1–4 and 6–17 are unpatentable, but for the reasons expressed below rather than those expressed in our Decision. Additionally, we maintain our prior conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that claim 5 is unpatentable without any modification to our reasoning expressed in the Decision. We repeat our prior analysis of claim 5 from our Decision so that this single paper contains the substance of our analysis of all of Petitioner’s challenges to the claims. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–4 and 6–17 are unpatentable but has failed to show that claim 5 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 6
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2002–2004, 2006, 2008, 2016, 2017, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2132, 2133, 2139, 2141, 2149, 2152, 2161, 2162, 2163, 2164, 2170–2176, 2196, and 2100 (¶¶ 18, 19, 59, 60, 66, 132, 143, 144, 165, 170, 175, 199, 201, 205, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, and 229) is denied;” slip op. at 96
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery is denied; and” slip op. at 96
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“laser as enough of a concern that its balloon could be cooled by circulating liquid through the balloon. Pet. 18, 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 120); Reply 31 (citing Ex. 1003, 3–5). However, Petitioner fails to adduce evidence that an EHL shockwave generator produces less heat than a laser-based shockwave generator such as Levy’s. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute an EHL probe for Levy’s laser probe to reduce heat generated by the probe.” slip op. at 38
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,956,371 - Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Sma Solar Technology AGRehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 25, 2022 · IPR2020-00021 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claims 1–10 unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–3, 5, and 7 over AAPA and Frezzolini; claims 4, 6, and 8–10 over AAPA, Frezzolini, and Iwamura.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Updated Guidance. See Opp. Reh’g 4–8. Instead, Patent Owner argues that we correctly determined in the Final Written Decision that AAPA was the foundation or starting point of the ground. Id. However, the language that we relied upon from the Guidance Memo in the Final Written Decision has been deleted from the Updated Guidance. Compare Guidance Memo 6 (directing the PTAB to determine if the applicant admitted prior art is the foundation or starting point), with Updated Guidance (language omitted). Although we properly followed the Guidance Memo in the Final Written follow the clear and unambiguous requirements of the Updated Guidance. Moreover, Patent Owner does not direct us to any Federal Circuit case law that suggests using the foundation or starting point test of the Guidance Memo. See Opp. Reh’g 4–8. Although the Qualcomm panel was aware of the Guidance Memo (see 24 F.4th at 1373), the Federal Circuit neither discussed the test set out in the Guidance Memo, nor directed that the PTAB apply the foundation or starting point test. See 24 F.4th 1367.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner argues—supported by the testimony of Dr. Wood—that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline and at least two years of design experience with photovoltaic systems.” Pet. 20 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 18– 22). In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of a person having ordinary skill in the art, “except that we delete[d] the qualifier ‘at least’ to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience.” Inst. Dec. 15–16. Patent Owner does not address that determination. See PO Resp. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. See Inst. Dec. 16. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline and two years of design experience with photovoltaic systems.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that all claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning at the time of the invention. Pet. 20. Patent Owner argues that two terms require explicit constructions: “the power line modem” and “the data signal coupler.” PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions limit the “power line modem” and the “data signal coupler” to DC power lines. PO Resp. 20–22. However, during the Oral Hearing, Patent Owner agreed that, consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, the other limitations of the claims require that the components operate on DC power lines. Tr. 37:5–23. As discussed in more detail below, Petitioner’s combination of prior art references uses DC power lines. Accordingly, no express construction is needed to resolve any dispute in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“of the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Guidance Memo 6–7; Updated Guidance 4–5. Although Patent Owner had the opportunity to make such an argument in the Sur-reply when addressing the Guidance Memo (and by implication, the identical language of Updated Guidance), Patent Owner chose not to do so and, accordingly, forfeited the argument. See Paper 9, 7. Although Patent Owner raised the argument at the oral hearing,17 that is not enough to preserve the argument as no new arguments can by made during the Oral Hearing. See CTPG at 85– 86 (“During an oral hearing, a party . . . may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted.”); Dell, 818 F.3d at 1301 (“[T]he Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”). Just as a movant may not make a new argument in a request for rehearing, a party opposing such a request cannot raise new arguments that it did not make before. See Apple Inc. v. Taction Tech., Inc., IPR2022-00057, Paper 15 at 4 (“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity . . . to present new arguments.”) (Denying Request for Rehearing). Accordingly, because Patent Owner did not argue that the limitations taught by the AAPA were not known in the prior art in its Patent Owner Response or Sur-reply, that argument is forfeited and cannot be considered on rehearing.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,922,048 - Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Herbert E. TownsendRehearing grantedPTAB · May 17, 2021 · IPR2018-00577 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing in part, finding challenges 8 and 9 unproven and limiting challenge 3 as to claim 6; it declined to disregard the petitioner’s expert’s entire testimony.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single 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.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed
“Dr. Shorten’s testimonies entirely. Nonetheless, in the Final Written Decision, in addressing Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the relevant art and level of ordinary skill in the art, we stated that the parties’ arguments “address what weight we should give to the testimony of the parties’ declarants” and “[f]or the reasons addressed below, the parties’ declarants both provide relevant testimony on issues being assessed dependent on the declarant’s particular background and expertise.” Final Dec. 13. We, thus, Rather, we assessed portions of the testimonies and how much weight should be given to them. In doing so, we considered Dr. Shorten’s relationship with Petitioner and the alleged conflicting testimony. Such matters go to credibility of the witness, but do not justify disregarding the testimony altogether as requested by Patent Owner. Even if there were conflicting testimonies as to whether Dr. Shorten ever tested a running shoe that has a dilatant compound in the sole, Dr. Shorten effectively corrected such discrepancy in his second declaration by testifying that his employee tested the Power Bounce shoe. See PO Sur- Reply 9. These two matters raised by Patent Owner did not rise to the level that Dr. Shorten’s entire testimony should be disregarded.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“In its Response in regard to secondary considerations, Patent Owner argued that “Petitioner’s expert tried and failed in 1985 to create shoes that had a dilatant compound in the sole.” PO Resp. 61. Petitioner replied that “Dr. Shorten explains there was not a failed attempt, but a reasonable decision to not to try because better materials were available.” Pet. Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1071 at ¶¶ 164–170). In his Reply Declaration, Dr. Shorten testified that Silly Putty in a shoe component “does not perform better than EVA [(ethyl vinyl acetate)],” that “it performed worse,” and that “[g]iven the additional cost and weight compared to EVA, Silly Putty does not provide a better option.” Ex. 1071 ¶ 170. We stated in the Final Written Decision that Petitioner replied that its declarant “explains there was not a failed attempt, but a reasonable decision to not to try because better materials were available.” Final Dec. 70 (citing Pet. Reply 27). Also, as pointed out in the Final Written Decision, Dr. Shorten testified that “Silly Putty is heavy and costly compared to EVA, a benchmark material,” “[g]iven the additional cost and weight compared to EVA, Silly Putty does not provide a better option,” and “I don’t think it has any -- in the form we see it in, you know, the patent referenced in the Townsend, I don’t think there’s any commercial value there personally.” Id. (citing Ex. 1071 (Shorten Reply Dec.) ¶¶ 164, 170; Ex. 2009 (Shorten “[b]ased on the record, a preponderance of the evidence persuades us that others tried but decided for economic reasons that using a dilatant compound in a shoe was an unattractive option.” Final Dec. 70. Thus, the Final Written Decision provided grounds for disregarding Petitioner’s Expert’s testimony with respect to his conclusion in 1985 to the extent that it conflicts with the later testimony. The fact that Dr. Shorten clarified or corrected his earlier testimony does not mean that we should disregard his later testimony, because there is nothing in the record to hold against the veracity of later testimonies, other than that earlier inconsistent testimony itself.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,490,416 - Shopify, Inc. / Priceline.Com LLC et al. v. DDR Holdings, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01014 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and held claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 unpatentable over the listed prior-art grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Petitioner’s argument on rehearing is persuasive, particularly under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,515,825 - Shopify, Inc. / Priceline.Com LLC et al. v. DDR Holdings, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01012 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
Granted Petitioner’s rehearing request and held claims 1–3, 5, 7–8, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 unpatentable, including claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 over the Digital River Publications.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Petitioner’s argument on rehearing is persuasive, particularly under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.”” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 105 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 23; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 105 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’228 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 4 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 105 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 23; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 105 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’228 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,043,228 - Shopify, Inc. / Priceline.Com LLC et al. v. DDR Holdings, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01011 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted; claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 were held unpatentable over the listed grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. LEGAL STANDARD A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The burden of showing a decision should be modified on a request for rehearing lies with the party challenging the decision. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 107 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶ 107. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 107 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’876 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument on rehearing is persuasive, particularly under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,639,876 - FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Onesubsea IP UK LimitedRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 19, 2018 · IPR2016-00907 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claims 36 and 37 unpatentable as obvious over Kelly and Fenton, Kelly, Bednar, and Fenton, and Clair and Fenton.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. STANDARD OF REVIEW According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with Petitioner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matters it requests that we review.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“sensors, as described by Fenton, are expressly enumerated as being processing apparatus in dependent claim 29.” Id. at 28 (cited by Req. Reh’g 5). The ’306 patent indeed teaches that a processing apparatus may include a temperature, pressure, or flow sensor. Ex. 1001, claim 29 (“the processing apparatus is chosen from at least one of: . . . measurement apparatus; temperature measurement apparatus; flow rate measurement apparatus . . .”); accord id. at claim 37. Accordingly, we also agree that Fenton’s sensors correspond to the recited “processing apparatus.” Petitioner further explained that “[m]odifying Kelly’s subsea choke assembly by adding one or more temperature sensors, pressure sensors, or flow meters as taught by Fenton would provide information related to fluid flow through the assembly and allow more precise control of the choke to achieve desired flow characteristics.” Pet. 27 (emphases added) (cited by Req. Reh’g 1). In light of our current understanding of Petitioner’s argument, based on the record, we find that the combination of Kelly and Fenton teaches a “diverter assembly,” a “choke,” and a “processing apparatus,” and that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Kelly’s choke assembly to include Fenton’s temperature sensors, pressure sensors, or flow meters in order to allow for more precise control of the choke is sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,573,306 - 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
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.