- PTAB · Dec 28, 2021 · IPR2021-01195 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 12, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Batchelder-based obviousness grounds would prevail.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Under the Board’s precedential decision in SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., when no time-bar or estoppel would apply once determining Petitioner did not name all RPIs, the Board need not address the issue. IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); see also Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (“[O]ur jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require a ‘correct’ identification of all RPIs in a petition.”); Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a petition fails to identify all real parties in” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“the ’354 patent, the overlap in the asserted prior art, and our prior determination of unpatentability regarding the ’354 patent, we conclude that the merits of Petitioner’s case in this proceeding are substantively strong. Thus, this factor weighs strongly in favor of institution. 7. Holistic assessment of factors and conclusion We consider the above factors and take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. In weighing the totality of the evidence, we decide not to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as a B.S. (bachelor of science), or equivalent thereof, in electrical or mechanical engineering or a closely related field, and would have possessed at least two or three years of experience in liquid cooling systems for computer systems or in similar systems. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–26). Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). The parties stipulated to constructions of “reservoir” and “chamber” in the district-court litigation. Ex. 1005, 2. Petitioner proposes additional constructions for “impeller” and “radiator.” Pet. 8–10. Patent Owner does not dispute those constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on our analysis of the issues in dispute at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that none of the claim terms identified by the parties require express construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 15
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,613,601 - Hamilton Technologies LLC v. Fleur TehraniAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2021 · IPR2020-01199 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 9–12, 29–33, and 41 are unpatentable as obvious over the Carmichael-Anderson and Taube-based combinations; the Carmichael anticipation ground was not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Imbruce’s testimony should be disregarded. With respect to Patent Owner’s contentions about “technically erroneous disclosures” and the construction of “for a next breath,” those are really about Patent Owner’s disagreements about those matters, not whether Dr. Imbruce was attempting to mislead the Board. Disagreement between the experts is not a basis for disregarding testimony. We have also reviewed the entirety of Dr. Imbruce’s deposition, and, in particular, the various parts identified by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 76–77. And, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we found Dr. Imbruce gave detailed answers in response to Patent Owner’s questions. We found Dr. Imbruce’s testimony to be adequate. See, e.g., Ex. 2016, 107:11–115:8 (discussion of Anderson references, explaining the similarities of the references, but declining to vouch for data he has not seen or collected); 115:9–116:6 (FDA permission, offering to confirm what reference said about FDA approval, but attorney moving on to other questions). Thus, we do not find Dr. Imbruce’s behavior during cross examination as a reason to give no weight to the entirety of his testimony.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(i) a medically trained physician or clinician specializing in treating respiratory failure issues with at least five years of practical clinical ventilator experience treating such conditions; or (ii) a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field and about five years of practical experience with developing ventilators for clinical patient treatment; or (iii) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field and about 10 years of practical experience with developing ventilators for clinical patient treatment. Pet. 20‒21 (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71‒72). Petitioner proposes that “[a] higher level of education or specific skill might compensate less experience, and vice versa.” Id. at 21. Patent Owner does not present an opposing view of the level of skill of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’571 patent. See PO Resp. passim. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’571 patent, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“In our Institution Decision, we determined that only the claim terms “first means” and “second means” required construction. Inst. Dec. 25–27. Neither party disputes those constructions and we maintain and adopt them for the purposes of this Decision. We determine that, for purposes of this decision, no other terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Carmichael lacks adequate disclosure to anticipate the apparatus of claim 1. Specifically, because Carmichael focuses on the result of physician surveys, and not on the description of a ventilation system per se, Carmichael lacks details as to the specific manner in which the assist control mode was being used to control PEEP and FIO2 levels. Specifically, we cannot discern that Carmichael’s discussion of an assist control mode for mechanical ventilation necessarily entails adjustments to FIO2 and PEEP “for a next breath of the patient” as recited in claim 1. As explained by Patent Owner, it is possible that the parameters of PEEP and FIO2 could have been set manually by the physician and/or could have been updated only periodically during treatment. See, e.g., PO Resp. 25‒26. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that Carmichael anticipates claim 1, or claims 2, 5, 6, and 11 that depend from claim 1.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,802,571 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,802,571 - PTAB · Dec 23, 2021 · IPR2021-01064 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 on all four asserted § 103 grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim, and we institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In our view, Petitioner correctly emphasizes Fintiv’s language noting that the Board generally disfavors discretionary denial when litigation did not involve the petitioner, unless “the issues are the same as, or substantially similar to those already or about to be litigated, or other circumstances weigh against redoing the work of another tribunal.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 13–14. Indeed, in multiple decisions Patent Owner cites for support, the Board determined that instituting review would require resolving issues that would also have been resolved by a district court. E.g., Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips N. Am. LLC, IPR2020-00828, Paper 13, 15–16 (considering the patent owner’s litigation with a non-petitioning party that would overlap with the inter partes review at issue); Mylan Labs. Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., IPR2020-00440, Paper 17, 19–23 (same, and additionally considering litigation involving the petitioner). Here, because the Intel litigation did not resolve issues presented by this proceeding, there is no chance of an inconsistent outcome. Indeed, “redoing the work of another tribunal” would only arise when that tribunal has resolved a dispute at issue before the Board. Patent Owner has not argued that resolving a dispute in this proceeding would conflict with an aspect of the Intel litigation. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that, because “the [litigation] parties and the District Court invested enormous amounts of time and money litigating validity and infringement issues relating to the ’759 patent,” instituting review here would mean redoing the work of another tribunal. Prelim. Resp. 17.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods. Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11, 9 (Apr. 2, 2019). In Valve, however, the petitioner and the prior petitioner were co-defendants accused of infringement based on the same product. Id. at 9–10. Patent Owner argues that the Board has found a relationship between petitioners when one uses substantive challenges from an earlier petition. Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8, 12). Ericsson imposed a relationship in light of the derivative nature of the petition at issue. Ericsson, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8, 12. That decision, however, has not been designated as precedential or informative by the Board, and other decisions have determined that factor 1 weights against discretionary denial for an independent petitioner. E.g., United Fire Protection Corp. v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC, IPR2018-00991, Paper 10 (determining that petitioner independence weighed against discretionary denial, but that substantive similarity with an unrelated prior petition meant the factor only moderately weighed against discretionary denial). We determine that factor 1 weighs somewhat against discretionary denial because Petitioner has not filed a prior petition, but did copy its substantive grounds from a prior petition. That the Board has not substantively addressed the merits of the prior petitions, in our view, weighs against discretionary denial, because that approach best balances the desires to improve patent quality and patent-system efficiency against the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents. See General Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, 16–17. We view substantive consideration as an important factor in that balance, because to determine otherwise would asymmetrically insulate patent owners from potential abuse without addressing the desire to improve patent quality. Patent Owner suffers no abuse from having this tribunal consider the merits of these grounds for the first time.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“The Federal Circuit held that “the Patent Office, when applying § 325(d), cannot deny institution of IPR based on abusive filing practices then grant a nearly identical reexamination request that is even more abusive.” Vivint, 14 F.4th at 1354. It found important that, when the Board denied Alarm.com’s IPR petition, the Board considered Alarm.com’s earlier petitions and reasoned that “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 [AIA].” Id. at 1353 (quoting IPR2016-01091, Paper 11, 12) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted). The facts here are not remotely similar. The Intel IPRs were not denied for abusive filing practices, but rather were denied to avoid overlap with a parallel district-court litigation. See IPR2020-00106, Paper 17, 4–13; IPR2020-00498, Paper 16, 4–10. This proceeding involves a different petitioner, which has not before petitioned for review of the ’759 patent. Those facts show that this Decision does not involve potentially abusive filing practices by the same challenger, as was at issue in Vivint. Patent Owner has not identified how instituting review would be inconsistent with a prior decision on this patent. As explained above, because the invalidity issues presented at trial were different from those considered in the prior application of Fintiv, we reach a different conclusion under that doctrine based on different facts here. Thus, Vivint is not germane to our decision.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,725,759 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, leaving intact its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“because the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for purposes of institution does not mean that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and importantly, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to reargue one’s case or to express disagreement with the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“But Bruckman’s “trunk link” (or LAG as argued by Petitioner) is explicitly disclosed as a link to a core network, not as the links (or traces 34 on backplane 26) to subsidiary modules 24, as argued by Petitioner: “In network access systems, for example, a backplane may be used to connect a main module, having a trunk link to a core network, to a number of subsidiary modules, such as line cards, with ports serving network users. Ex. 1007, 1:25–30 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:61–2:4 (“The master module comprises a switch, which is typically used for linking the subsidiary modules via the connection lines to a network trunk.” (emphases added)); Dec. 25. Bruckman also explicitly discloses that “[a]t any given time, a number of the connection lines [between main module 22 and subsidiary modules 24, i.e., traces 34] are likely to be idle” (Ex. 1007, 2:2–4), which is contrary to a purpose of a LAG (see Ex. 1001, 2:10–16 (“The [LAG] forwarding entity usually attempts to distribute the load evenly over each physical output port of the aggregated logical link.” (emphasis added))). See Dec. 25–28. Thus, in the Decision, we found neither Petitioner nor its declarant had explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have understood Bruckman to teach the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, of which the physical links are subject to the Designating Limitations, as recited, for example, in claim 1. Indeed, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition as to the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, and having reviewed the Request, remain unpersuaded. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 4
Nonecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - Stahls’ Inc. v. Jodi A. Schwendimann, F/K/A Jodi A. Dalvey, And Nucoat, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2020-01122 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 16 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish required limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’475 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Imaging Technology or Material Science with at least one year of experience in coating technologies and imaging technologies, or at least five years of work experience in the field of coating technologies and imaging technologies.” DI 8 (adopting Dr. Ellison’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes that determination and that level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record. See Resp. 20–21; see generally Reply.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which departs from the constructions in the Arkwright Lawsuit and the Delaware Lawsuit, which both require actual melting, not just softening, and construe “mix” to have its plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1038, 17; Ex. 1045, 8–11. Accordingly, we maintain our construction of the term “white layer” from the Institution Decision. Further, to the extent Patent Owner argues that our construction of “white layer” requires an actual transfer of an image onto a substrate (for example, after printing, using heat), we disagree. See, e.g., Reply 5; Tr. 32:15–33:19, 46:15–49:25. Although we construe the term “white layer” as comprising a polymer that melts and mixes “during application,” this merely reflects a property of the polymer that occurs, for example, once heat is applied to an image transfer sheet. It does not mean that transferring an image from a sheet to a substrate must occur to satisfy claims 1 and 13. We discuss this in more detail below with respect to our construction of the preamble of claims 1 and 13, and in our prior art analysis of these claims. We note, however, that Patent Owner states that “the parties’ disputes with respect to the construction of the ‘white layer’ make no difference to the Board’s resolution of this matter.” Resp. 23.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“steps. Ex. 1012, 12:42–67. In its Response, Patent Owner argues that the order of the method steps, i.e., “providing an ink-jet transfer article,” “wherein the substrate member is peeled away,” “wherein the opaque first layer and the second layer are applied to the dark-colored or black receiving member,” and “wherein heat is applied” is sequential. Resp. 23–24. Patent Owner explains that “[t]his is because the Claim requires ‘that received indicia face upwards,’” and “[i]f one were to place the transfer so that received indicia faces upwards, but not remove the backing paper before applying heat, then the backing paper (sandwiched between the fabric and the transfer) would prevent the transfer from adhering to the fabric.” Id. In its Reply, “Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s position that the step of ‘peeling’ the substrate is performed before the step of applying the opaque layer and second layer to the receiving member and the steps recited thereafter.” Reply 2. Both parties agree that the steps of method claim 19 must be performed in sequential order. Thus, we need not construe this aspect of the claim language because it is not in controversy. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Owner waited until the Sur-reply to address this issue with any level of specificity, which calls into question the timeliness of its argument. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) (Nov. 2019) 73–74, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“Sur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comments on reply declarations testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony.”); Paper 10, 10 (“any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived”). Nevertheless, we disagree with Patent Owner that “ink-jet transfer” is essential to claims 1 and 13. Claims 1 and 13 are not method claims. Rather, as Petitioner argues, both claims are directed to an article of manufacture made of structurally complete components that does not require an ink-jet transfer, even though the article may be used for such a purpose. See Reply 2–4; see also Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A preamble is not regarded as limiting [] ‘when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.’”) (citation omitted). The body of claim 1 does not reference “an ink-jet transfer” at all. See Ex. 1012, 11:35–41. And although claim 13 also recites that the article is “for transferring an image to a fabric material” and comprises a layer that is “ink-receptive,” these recitations are not essential to understanding the claim; nor do they show that the claim requires an ink-jet transfer. See id. at 12:13–14, 12:20–22. Rather, the first phrase merely recites an intended use of the article, and the second phrase merely describes a layer’s ability to receive ink. Accordingly, we determine that the preambles of claims 1 and 13 are not limiting. As such, Patent Owner’s arguments that the combined teachings of Akada and Takao fail to disclose or suggest an “ink-jet transfer” article are unpersuasive. See, e.g., Resp. 38, 41; Sur-reply 20–22. Even if we were to find the preambles limiting, Petitioner establishes that an “ink-jet transfer article” would have been obvious given the prior art disclosures. See Pet. 30, 45 (asserting that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Akada’s and Takao’s thermal transfer printing method was interchangeable with an ink jet printing method); (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 120–121; Ex. 1030, 3:26–29); Reply 24 (“Akada’s dye sublimation transfer sheets are ‘ink-jet transfer articles’ because they can effectively be printed on with ink-jet technology”), 29 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶ 27; Ex. 1019, 7:63–8:4) (“Takao itself teaches that its thermal transfer image-receiving sheet may receive the image in the form of a ‘hot melt ink layer of colorant, such as a pigment’”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,766,475 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,766,475 - Platform Science, Inc. v. XRS CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00325 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 were unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not offered persuasive evidence of any suggestion in the prior art that Nehowig’s onboard computer may be used with multiple different engine control modules that communicate data in different languages. Nor has Petitioner offered persuasive evidence of any suggestion in Nehowig that its engine control module uses more than one language. Contrarily, Nehowig suggests that the onboard computer and engine control module are vehicle specific without an indication that either needs to be adaptable for use in multiple different vehicles. . . . Additionally, regardless of whether Nehowig’s ECM uses one or multiple communication protocols, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that it would have been obvious to modify Nehowig’s OBC 204 to meet limitation 1A.1. Fedorchuk discloses a device configured for connecting to and communicating with a diagnostic communication port of any of a variety of vehicles using any of a number of different possible protocols, enabled by interface device 10’s ability to detect the different possible protocols. . . . Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that Nehowig’s OBC 204 would be connected to any ECM without OBC 204 and the ECM already configured to communicate specifically with one another using one more predesignated protocols. . . . Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that Nehowig’s OBC 204 would not already have dedicated provisions for communicating with the ECM in the specific protocol(s) the ECM uses. Nehowig clearly discloses that OBC 204 already can communicate with Nehowig’s ECM, apparently using whatever protocol(s) the ECM uses. [Ex. 1005] ¶ 23. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently a reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Nehowig’s OBC 204 to allow it to communicate with the ECM.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“misapprehended that the Petition identified a particular proposed combination. We acknowledged Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Dec. 25–26 (“Petitioner then describes a scenario, argued ‘[t]o achieve this goal [of not having the official enter the vehicle],’ where the official ‘will provide a cable to the driver to plug into the EOBR’ . . . . Based on this, Petitioner concludes ‘[t]herefore, the combined system of Nehowig and Fedorchuk implementing the DOT regulations discloses transferring the hours of service information from the OBC to a safety assurance officer’s computer via a data cable.’”). And, even had we overlooked or misapprehended it, the outcome would not change. Again, the basis for the Decision is that Petitioner failed to explain adequately and persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrange the data flow in this manner. Dec. 27. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of any error in our Decision that the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness of limitation 1B.1. See Dec. 27–28. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in not instituting an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’575 patent.” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,255,575 - PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-01029 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 12–14, finding a reasonable likelihood that Atarashiya anticipates them because the claims likely lack the parent application's written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’654 patent, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7 and 12–14 of the ’654 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“on the current record, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently met its burden to show, for purposes of institution, that the Parent Application does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of a liquid crystal device that has both (1) a pixel electrode as the second electrode and a common electrode as the first electrode, and (2) a light shielding film configured to overlap with the second electrode (i.e., the pixel electrode) which is bent in plan view, as required by independent claims 1 and 14.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient threshold showing that limitations [1.12] and [1.13] in independent claim 1 (and the similar limitations in independent claim 14) lack written description support in the Parent Application. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the challenged claims in the ’654 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the March 4, 2009 filing date of the Parent Application. This determination is preliminary in nature and based on the record at this stage of the proceeding. We invite the parties to develop these arguments further at trial, to the extent permitted under our rules. D. Anticipation by Atarashiya Petitioner contends that claims 1–7 and 12–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Atarashiya. Pet. 14, 26–64. Atarashiya published on September 10, 2009. Ex. 1004, code (43). As set forth above, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’654 patent is not entitled to the March 4, 2009 filing date of the Parent Application. Accordingly, on the present record, there appears to be a reasonable likelihood that Atarashiya qualifies as prior art because it was published more than one year before the November 20, 2014 filing date of the ’654 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (22).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient threshold showing that limitations [1.12] and [1.13] in independent claim 1 (and the similar limitations in independent claim 14) lack written description support in the Parent Application. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the challenged claims in the ’654 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the March 4, 2009 filing date of the Parent Application. This determination is preliminary in nature and based on the record at this stage of the proceeding. We invite the parties to develop these arguments further at trial, to the extent permitted under our rules.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,310,654 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00978 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations teach or suggest the server-initiated fund transfer limitation in claims 1 and 9.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’855 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’855 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Although Petitioner contends that “it was obvious” for the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to a financial institution, Pet. 34, Petitioner presents insufficient evidence as to why this would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’855 patent based on the combined teachings of Dua and Davis. Petitioner states only in a conclusory manner that, “after the WCM receives an indication that the ‘load request’ is verified, it was obvious to send additional information identifying the credential and for the request to the ICMS, thus allowing the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to the financial institution/bank.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–188). In Davis, however, the client terminal, rather than the load server,” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Although Petitioner contends that “it was obvious” for the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to a financial institution, Pet. 34, Petitioner presents insufficient evidence as to why this would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’855 patent based on the combined teachings of Dua and Davis. Petitioner states only in a conclusory manner that, “after the WCM receives an indication that the ‘load request’ is verified, it was obvious to send additional information identifying the credential and for the request to the ICMS, thus allowing the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to the financial institution/bank.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–188). In Davis, however, the client terminal, rather than the load server,” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“V. DISCRETIONARY ISSUES Because we deny institution on the merits, we do not reach the discretionary issues raised by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 17–25.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,448,855 - Netskope, Inc. v. Bitglass, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00092 · APJ James J Mayberry · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 17–20 and 22–24, exercising discretion under § 324(a) because the parallel petitions were not justified.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence, we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“We agree with Patent Owner that two petitions challenging the claims of the ’671 patent are not warranted under these circumstances. First, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner has provided us with no explanation as to why multiple petitions are necessary here, despite our guidance in the CTPG, which states that such an explanation should be provided at the time the multiple petitions are filed. See CTPG 59–61. As such, we are left with no justification for the two petitions from Petitioner to weigh against Patent Owner’s arguments. Second, we do not discern, based on our own review of the petitions, any reason why one petition would not have been sufficient to challenge the claims of the ’671 patent, given the substantial overlap in the subject matter of the claims. The ’671 patent has three independent claims. Ex. 1001, 13:61–17:9. Claim 1 is written as a method claim, claim 9 is written to cover “[o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” storing instructions of the method of claim 1, and claim 17 is written as a system implementing the method of claim 1. Id. at 13:65–14:17, 15:1–22, 16:12–38. The claims depending from these independent claims recite similar subject matter. Compare, e.g., 14:51–53 (claim 7), with 15:60–63 (claim 15) and 16:42–44 (claim 19) (reciting subject matter directed to the identity provider monitoring the operating status of the application proxy server).12 As Patent Owner argues, Dr. Franz’s testimony is repetitive, often referencing analysis directed to claim 1 and its challenged dependent claims in analyzing claim 17 and its challenged dependent claims. See, e.g., Ex. 100213 ¶¶ 140, 141, 143–146 (referencing the analysis of elements of claim 1 for elements of claim 17), ¶¶ 147–149 (referencing the analysis of claims 4 and 5 for claims 22 and 18/23). We recognize that Petitioner challenges the priority date of the ’671 patent. See Pet. 16–23; CTPG 59 (indicating a priority date dispute could justify multiple petitions). Also, one set of grounds depends, in part, on the priority date of the Challenged Claims. See Pet. 96–120 (challenging claims based on a reference in the priority chain of the ’671 patent). Petitioner does not, however, differentiate its petitions based on this issue—both petitions have identical grounds, most of which do not turn on the priority date of the Challenged Claims. See Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (“[A]lthough there is a priority 12 Additional overlap exists—as evidenced in a comparison of the combined recitations of claims 18 and 23 with claims 5 and 13, claim 19 with claims 7 and 15, claim 20 with claims 8 and 16, claim 22 with claims 4 and 12, and claim 24 with claims 6 and 14. Ex. 1001, 13:61–17:9. 13 Ex. 1002 is the same exhibit filed in both PGR2021-00091 and PGR2021- 00092. See Ex. 1002, title page. issue raised by the Petition, the Petitioner is not proposing alternate grounds based on different priority dates of the patent claims. Both petitions raise the same ground and have the same exact prior art combinations.”). Thus, the particular circumstances of this proceeding do not appear to warrant multiple petitions.” slip op. at 22
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,855,671 - Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Dynaenergetics Europe GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00089 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“We are authorized to institute a post-grant review where a petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged patent claim is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324. We are never compelled to institute a review, however, because institution is discretionary. Id.; cf. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”). As in an IPR proceeding, we deny post-grant review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Cf. Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363; 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would be expected to have at least a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of industry experience related to assembling, operating, and/or designing perforating tools.” Pet. 10 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 28). Patent Owner “believes that Petitioner’s definition suggests that a field technician who merely assembles guns could be a POSITA, which is incorrect,” and instead proposes “a POSITA would be expected to have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two (2) years of industry experience related to designing perforating gun systems.” Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 52). For the purposes of institution, we do not see a material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Nonetheless, because Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record, including the prior art, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner for purposes of this Decision. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2020). This standard requires that we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim[s] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA trial proceeding). Patent Owner proposes constructions for “shaped charge receptacle” and “retention mechanism extending from a portion of the body.” Prelim. Resp. 36–38; see also PO Sur-reply 1–5. In its Reply, Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Pet. Reply 2–3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In addition, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently explained its alternative argument based on the “simple substitution of the circular openings (for inserting the shaped charges) in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel.” Pet. 90 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 485). As an initial matter, Petitioner’s proposed substitution lacks sufficient clarity because it remains unclear which of Vann’s structures remain in the resulting combination. By emphasizing substitution of the “circular openings” alone in Vann, Petitioner suggests that Vann’s tabs 62 remain without explaining why the tabs are necessary if Von Kaenel’s tabs retain the shaped charges. See id. As discussed, Vann requires that the plurality of charge holders are placed in tandem and jointly cooperate together to make up a charge carrier 48. Ex. 1009, 5:50–56. To do so, tabs 62 formed by extended lateral edges 56, 58 are aligned in an overhanging relationship relative to the central lateral face 70 of the two adjacent charge holders. Id. at 6:61–64, Fig. 5. If the proposed combination employs Von Kaenel’s tabs to retain the charges, preserving the overhanging relationship of Vann’s tabs 62 to retain the charges would appear superfluous, and if Petitioner proposes retaining Vann’s tabs 62 but removing the overhanging relationship, Petitioner does not describe such a structure. In either case, a substitution of Vann’s circular openings alone while Vann’s tabs 62 remain in the resulting combination lacks adequate specificity and support. For completeness, we assess Petitioner’s argument based on the assumption that Petitioner proposes removing Vann’s tabs 62 entirely from the proposed combination. Per this theory, a POSITA would have simply substituted Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 for Vann’s tabs 62 because a POSITA would have recognized the advantages of having the retention mechanisms be a part of the body in order reduce the number of tools and assembly required, to allow for differing offsets, as well as to simplify manufacturing, as discussed in each of Vann, Brooks, and Von Kaenel. Pet. 89–90 (emphasis added) (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 484; Ex. 1013, Abstract, 2:60–3:16, 5:20–41, 8:41–58; Ex. 1009, 1:18–21, 2:22–29, 1:66–67, 1:41– 43, 3:63–68, 4:14–24; Ex. 1010, 9:48–53, 1:52–64). However, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how this substitution would “simplify manufacturing” for Vann’s specific stacked formation. Indeed, Vann’s charge carrier is formed by a plurality of charge holders that jointly cooperate in tandem, which includes the cooperation of extended lateral edges that overhang the central lateral face of adjacent charge holders. See Ex. 1009, 6:61–64; Fig. 5. Substitution of Vann’s tabs 62 with Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 would affect Vann’s tandem construction if tabs 62 are removed. See Pet. 80–95. More importantly, Petitioner has failed to explain adequately why a POSITA would have sought to make this combination to simplify manufacturing or reduce assembly given Vann’s specific charge carrier design, which is dependent on the overhanging relationship between separate, stacked charge holders. Id. Further, Mr. Parrott’s testimony is not helpful on this point. In paragraph 485 (cited by Petitioner), Mr. Parrott states that Von Kaenel’s tabs (retention mechanisms) would have been applied with ease to Vann’s perforating gun apparatus, which would have yielded predictable results. A POSITA would have recognized the combination as a simple substitution of the circular openings for inserting the shaped charges in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Parrott Decl. ¶ 485 (emphases added). Like the Petition, these statements by Mr. Parrott are conclusory and do not explain the basis for his conclusions. See id. Looking elsewhere, paragraph 484 mirrors statements and citations in the Petition, which as discussed, are insufficient. Id. ¶ 484. And although paragraph 483 articulates the advantages of using “Von Kaenel’s superior teachings in order to better achieve the goal of reliably securing and positioning the shaped charges,” Mr. Parrott neglects to explain the proposed substitution in the context of Vann’s specific charge carrier design that relies on the overhanging edges/tabs of the charge holders for the in tandem assembly and construction. Id. ¶ 483 (citing Ex. 1013, Fig. 6B, 8:59–67). The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id. Here, Petitioner has failed to make the threshold showing for the” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,844,696
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.