- Quantile Technologies Limited v. Trioptima ABAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2021 · CBM2020-00012 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–46 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim abstract financial and mathematical processes without integrating them into a practical application or adding an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On October 6, 2020, based on the record before us at the time, we instituted a covered business method patent review of all challenged claims on all grounds alleged. Paper 11 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”). The claims and ground in this proceeding are indicated in the table below.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2019). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as they would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Patent Owner seeks construction of the terms “linking unit” and “combining unit” from claims 5 and 23, and “converting unit” from claim 6. Pet. 14–18. However, because we determine that even under Patent Owner’s constructions, the claims would be ineligible as discussed below, we discern no terms in need of express interpretation. Accordingly, we apply the legal standards set forth above when reading the claims. B. CBM PATENT REVIEW ELIGIBILITY” slip op. at 15
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Id. at 33:66–34:12 (emphasis added). The combination of the elements italicized above recites the concept of simplifying a trade portfolio through premature termination of certain transactions. The claimed method accomplishes this through collecting information, grouping related information together, and then using mathematical techniques on the information, calculating a total value of the group, and selecting a certain group that meets certain criteria. This is all a mental process, an example of an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Claims 4 and 5 use a generic processor to perform well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, such as receiving and analyzing data and performing mathematical calculations. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function--making calculations or computations-- fails to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes.”). We do not discern any claimed element for accomplishing the claimed solution that is other than what was generically known for performing those conventional functions. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1057 (“[T]he claims do not provide details as to any non-conventional software for enhancing the financing process.”); see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our law demands more” than claim language that “provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (explaining that claims are directed to an abstract idea where they do not recite “any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing [conventional] functions”). Despite Patent Owner’s assertions that the claim steps add enough to make the claims patentable, we find the recitation of the steps performed by a generic processor at a high level of generality is insufficient to supply an inventive concept.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,010,441 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,010,441 - Google LLC v. Videoshare LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2021 · CBM2020-00027 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review for claims 1–7 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent; it did not reach the § 101 challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“E. Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 77. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claims recite the abstract idea of including advertising with appropriately formatted video.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has failed to show that the claims recite ineligible subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 64. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’341 Patent claims recite specific steps that improve the functioning of a video server providing shared video files.” Id. Because we have determined that the ’341 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review, we do not address whether the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,362,341 - Marketdial, Inc. v. Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · CBM2020-00025 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review of claims 1–35 under Fintiv because the district court had already held the same claims invalid under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“institution decision.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Snap, Paper 8). We agree. There will be no trial as to patent infringement because the district court already concluded that all claims of the ’916 patent are invalid under § 101. Patent Owner indicates that it will appeal that decision once the remainder of the district court case concludes. Id. at 3. The statutory deadline for a final written decision in this proceeding would be one year from institution. Under the particular factual circumstances of this case, we find that this factor strongly weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“3 Because we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we need not decide other issues presented by the Petition, such as whether the ’916 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
“3 Because we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we need not decide other issues presented by the Petition, such as whether the ’916 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,571,916 - Banilla Games, Inc. v. Savvy Dog Systems, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2020 · CBM2020-00014 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because the remaining claims did not establish that the patent claims a financial product or service, as required for CBM review.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , 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) (2018). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that the challenged patent qualifies as a covered business method patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute a covered business method patent review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the limitations “determining a winning combination” and “testing the game field . . . to ensure that a winning combination more valuable . . .” are not financial in nature. Beginning with “winning combination,” we agree with Patent Owner that “winning,” by itself, is not necessarily monetary in nature. Prelim. Resp. 28. Indeed, other games include the step of determining whether a combination is a “winning combination” or not without necessarily involving any kind of prize or payout. See id. at 29–30. Instead, as is shown in the ’223 patent, some additional step after the determination of who won is necessarily if there is going to be some monetary payout corresponding to the win. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6 (showing Step 630 of “Redeem Payout and Credit Balance”), Fig. 8 (showing Step 820 of “Redeem Payout and Credit Balance”), 6:34–40 (explaining a player “may” redeem points earned in the game for cash). Petitioner identifies nothing in the specification requiring that money be paid for just winning. Moreover, the ’223 patent makes clear that the games are intended broadly for “entertainment” and “amusement” and not just for gambling. See id. at 1:13–15 (explaining patent is related to “amusement and entertainment electronic gaming”). As Patent Owner explains, the ’223 patent expressly discusses the use of the games in Ohio, which prohibits gambling, but permits the use of games of skill for entertainment purposes. See Prelim. Resp. 52–58 (discussing Ohio’s laws in detail); Ex. 1001, 1:18–33 (describing Ohio’s laws prohibiting gambling, but allowing “games of skill”). Thus, at best, “winning combination” relates only to the possibility that a monetary payout could be received, not that a player necessarily will receive anything of monetary value for playing the game. This possibility is insufficient to meet the financial product or service requirement. See Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1382 (noting “it cannot be the case that a patent covering a method and corresponding apparatuses becomes a CBM patent because its practice could involve a potential sale of a good or service” and “[i]t is not enough that a sale has occurred or may occur, or even that the specification speculates such a potential sale might occur”).” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,736,223 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2019 · CBM2018-00006 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final written decision that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he 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, opposition, or a reply.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on this particular issue is timely. Patent Owner has argued that “the institution should never have occurred” and that institution should have been denied outright. Id. However, our Decision on Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”) was entered on June 22, 2018. Any request for rehearing of our determinations regarding the forum selection clause in that Decision should have been filed 14 days from the entry of that decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1). As we noted in the FWD, after institution of the covered business method patent review (“CBM review”), the parties did not present any additional evidence or arguments regarding the forum selection clause issue. FWD 8 (“In the post-institution briefing, neither party has added arguments or evidence to the record regarding this issue.”). Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”) and Sur-Reply (Paper 39, “Sur.”) and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31, “Reply”) did not discuss forum selection. For completeness and clarity of the record, we reiterated our” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“be instructive, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, that decision has not been designated precedential. Moreover, taking into consideration the discussion by the panel in Global Tel*Link, we are not persuaded that our determination misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence in” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“the abstract idea. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this is clear error or deprived Patent Owner of the opportunity to defend its position. Indeed, Patent Owner does not explain why the “rules for playing a bonus wagering game” is substantively different from “allowing bonus wagers in a wagering game,” or, more importantly, the basis for Patent Owner’s contention that this is a “fundamental change.” See Reh’g Req. 11.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 7,451,987 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkeley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · CBM2019-00013 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decisions denying institution of CBM review of the challenged claims in four proceedings, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As explained in the Institution Decision, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to whether the challenged claims recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art relied on a claim construction that we did not adopt. Inst. Dec. 13–14. As such, the Petition did not adequately explain why it was not novel and obvious to use an RDBMS itself to perform the claimed profit calculations. Id. at 14. Although Petitioner disagrees with our conclusion, and now cites to disparate portions of the Petition to support its argument, a mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing, and a rehearing request is not the proper vehicle to make arguments that were not clearly set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner also contends that the Board failed to consider its obviousness arguments. Req. Reh’g 14–15. We considered these arguments, but ultimately found them unpersuasive. Inst. Dec. 13–14. In short, Petitioner presumed a construction of “using the relational database management system to . . . calculate” that we did not adopt, and did not explain sufficiently why the prior art of record would have rendered the challenged claims obvious under the adopted claim construction. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to remedy these deficiencies.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,882,137 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkeley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · CBM2019-00009 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denials of CBM review based on the petition’s failure to show the challenged claims unpatentable under the adopted construction.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As explained in the Institution Decision, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to whether the challenged claims recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art relied on a claim construction that we did not adopt. Inst. Dec. 13–14. As such, the Petition did not adequately explain why it was not novel and obvious to use an RDBMS itself to perform the claimed profit calculations. Id. at 14. Although Petitioner disagrees with our conclusion, and now cites to disparate portions of the Petition to support its argument, a mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing, and a rehearing request is not the proper vehicle to make arguments that were not clearly set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,882,137 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2019 · CBM2019-00015 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 3–5, and 10–26 because it had not shown the patent was not a technological invention.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity for a petitioner to respond to an institution decision to make a better argument for any given matter than that which was initially presented in a petition. Notably, in now challenging the claim construction of the above-noted term, Petitioner does not cite or identify any portion of the Petition that was misapprehended or overlooked. Instead, Petitioner seeks to make a better case through citation to portions of the record that were not previously relied upon. For instance, Petition now points to content of the prosecution history (Ex. 1002) pertaining to claim amendments made during prosecution that Petitioner would have us infer as demonstrating that the applicant “knew” how to limit the claims to calculations “in the RDBMS” but chose not to. Req. Reh’g 2– 3. That was not an argument on which Petitioner previously relied, and thus was not an argument that we could have misapprehended or overlooked. Moreover, in now making the argument, Petitioner seemingly discounts the plain language of the claims in specifically reciting “using” the RDBMS “to independently calculate” marginal values of profit. Ex. 1001, 30:61–63. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments pertaining to claim construction, but are not persuaded that they demonstrate that we misapprehended or overlooked content of the Petition that warrants a change in the claim constructions that were identified in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petition, and which we found unpersuasive. As we explained in the Institution Decision, we were not satisfied that “bulk citations” to large portions of the record provided “meaningful explanation that the prior art shows an RDBMS, itself, that is performing the necessary profit calculations.” Inst. Dec. 13–14. We were not persuaded that Petitioner’s assessment of the prior art showed adequately that the “requirements of limitation 1[d] pertaining to independent profitability calculation by an RDBMS are non-novel or obvious.” Id. at 15. Although Petitioner may disagree with our determination in that respect, mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we adopted the Patent Owner’s construction of claim element 1[d(i)] (id. at 8), concluding that the construction was supported by “(1) the ’521 patent itself [see, e.g., id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:42–47)]; (2) the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant [see, e.g., id. at 14–16 (referencing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 58–67, 75, 81– 85)]; and (3) the prosecution history of the ’521 patent [see, e.g., id. at 16” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Page 12 of the Petition, however, makes no connection between Blain’s teachings and the pertinent claim limitation 1[d]. There is no reasonable inference from the above-noted content of page 12 of the Petition that paragraph 85 of Dr. Weber’s testimony should be evaluated in the context of viewing an RDBMS as independently performing profitability calculations. We simply were not persuaded that the Petition and the applicable portions of Dr. Weber’s testimony cited therein, including paragraph 85, adequately addressed the features required by claims limitation 1[d].” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,596,521 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2019 · CBM2019-00016 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing request and left in place denial of CBM review of claims 2, 6-9, and 27-32 because it had not shown the patent was not for a technological invention.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(d) Rehearing. . . . 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 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petition, and which we found unpersuasive. As we explained in the Institution Decision, we were not satisfied that “bulk citations” to large portions of the record provided “meaningful explanation that the prior art shows an RDBMS, itself, that is performing the necessary profit calculations.” Inst. Dec. 14. We were not persuaded that Petitioner’s assessment of the prior art showed adequately that the “requirements of limitation 1[d] pertaining to independent profitability calculation by an RDBMS are non-novel or obvious.” Id. at 16. Although Petitioner may disagree with our determination in that respect, mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing. We also concluded that record evidence conveyed that the claims solved a technical problem with a technical solution in providing “a distinctive software-based process that harnesses benefits to computer performance.” Id. at 17. In reaching that conclusion, we rejected Petitioner’s premise that the claims were simply directed to solving a business problem using a business solution. Petitioner does not address adequately the issue of improved computer performance, or identify any matter that we misapprehended or overlooked in determining that record evidence reasonably conveyed that such improved computer performance emerges from the method of claim 1.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we adopted the Patent Owner’s construction of claim element 1[d(i)] (id. at 9), concluding that the construction was supported by “(1) the ’521 patent itself [see, e.g., id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:42–47)]; (2) the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant [see, e.g., id. at 15–17 (referencing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 58–67, 75, 81–85)]; and (3) the prosecution history of the ’521 patent [see, e.g., id.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Page 13 of the Petition, however, makes no connection between Blain’s teachings and the pertinent claim limitation 1[d]. There is no reasonable inference from the above-noted content of page 13 of the Petition that paragraph 85 of Dr. Weber’s testimony should be evaluated in the context of viewing an RDBMS as independently performing profitability calculations. We simply were not persuaded that the Petition and the applicable portions of Dr. Weber’s testimony cited therein, including paragraph 85, adequately addressed the features required by claims limitation 1[d].” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,596,521 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2018 · CBM2018-00018 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of CBM review of claims 1–17 and 22–24 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“completion of a purchase of a ticket, is a “recitation of a financial operation” sufficient to establish that claims 23 recite a covered business method. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (“The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent . . . .”). Petitioner simply does not now explain persuasively why the transmission of a secured validating display by a computer system in the course of validating a ticket that had been purchased constitutes activity that is “active[] and contemporaneous[]” with the “management or administration of a financial product or service.” See Req. Reh’g 3–4. In order to be eligible for a CBM review, the challenged patent must “claim[] a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service . . . .” AIA § 18(d)(1). After considering the Petition, we determined that Petitioner did not meets its burden of demonstrating that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent. Although Petitioner may disagree with our determination as to claim 23, disagreement is not, itself, a proper basis for requesting rehearing. Here, Petitioner does not identify persuasively that we misapprehended or overlooked any matter in reaching a determination other than that desired by Petitioner.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . 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. We address below, in the order presented in the Request for Rehearing, the matters Petitioner asserts we overlooked or misapprehended.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,239,993
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.