• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01410 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combinations listed in the Order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. See supra Sections II.A.2–3. Rather, we interpret “synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects appearing in the overlap zones, and interpret “synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the claims allow for a “minimal” level of multiple exposure and only require a “nearly exact” representation of what the virtual camera would see. We are not persuaded that any parallax effects that might remain when the pattern recognition techniques of Mitsubishi are used in Yamamoto’s system, as Petitioner asserts, would cause more than “minimal” multiple exposure or prevent the resulting image from being a “nearly exact” representation. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 110; Ex. 1066 ¶ 25. Moreover, even if the resulting image in the combined system would suffer from some parallax effects, we do not see how that contradicts Petitioner’s asserted reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamamoto’s system, or why parallax concerns would have outweighed the advantage of improved image processing, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have abandoned the three camera arrangement of Yamamoto. See Reply 15–17; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In that respect, we find Dr. Wolberg’s analysis of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings compelling. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 101–15; Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 22–37.” slip op. at 32

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “public accessibility. PO Resp. 17–21. Based on all of the evidence of record,18 however, we are persuaded that Wang was disseminated or otherwise made available prior to May 22, 1996, to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence could have located it. Most probative are the Library of Congress certification and Linda Hall Library documentation, which show that Wang was catalogued and readily available through these libraries. See Exs. 1046, 1060. Mr. Grenier further testifies that copies of the article were made available to attendees of the EURO ASIC ’91 conference, which was an IEEE academic conference pertaining to ASICs. See Ex. 1039; Ex. 1055; Ex. 1060, 2–13 (stating that the conference “includes reports on ASIC design experiences, advances in design methods and tools, and on the evolution of ASIC technology,” and is “the definitive place . . . for the academic community to exchange ideas”; listing numerous papers to be 18 We are persuaded that all of Petitioner’s evidence should be considered, including the evidence introduced with the Reply, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, during a conference call with the parties on May 26, 2016, Patent Owner sought authorization to file a motion to “strike” Petitioner’s new evidence and portions of Petitioner’s Reply. See Paper 20. We determined that a motion to strike was not appropriate at that time, but stated that “[s]hould either party request a hearing in this proceeding, . . . the parties may address the propriety of the exhibits and Petitioner’s Reply during oral argument. If the parties choose not to request a hearing, Patent Owner may request another conference call and we will determine whether additional briefing or any other action may be appropriate at that time.” Id. at 3; Ex. 1071, 20:14–22:18. Patent Owner did not request oral argument, and did not request another conference call to address the issue. presented relating to, for example, digital signal processing ASICs, chip architecture, and graphic application and image processing ASICs). Given the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent set forth above, see supra Section II.B, we are persuaded that the EURO ASIC ’91 conference is the type of conference that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been interested in and likely attended. The dates and documentation for the conference also are consistent with the other submitted evidence, including the copyright notation of Wang itself, which states in part “© 1991 IEEE.” See Ex. 1009, 1. Finally, as Petitioner correctly points out, the first article cited by Dr. Wolberg shows that Wang in fact was accessed by some other individuals working in the field of image sensors. See Reply 12; Ex. 1040. Based on the record presented, we are persuaded that Wang is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00064 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place institution on claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55 based on the showing that those claims were more likely than not obvious over Nicholson and Brown.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “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 previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. 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 may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “2003/0046591 A1 (Ex. 1017), published on March 6, 2003, and WIPO International Publication No. WO 03/021837 A1 (Ex. 1028), published on March 13, 2003, more than one year before the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008)—are also prior art under § 102(b), showing what was known in the art and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.4 See In re Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136–37 (CCPA 1972) (citing In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1969); In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 690–91 (CCPA 1958)) (noting that, because the patentee could not claim the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application, the patentee’s own prior patent or publication that was published more than one year from the actual filing date of the application at issue was available as prior art under § 102(b)). Therefore, we disagree with Patent Owner that we committed a clear error in determining that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, and that we committed a clear error in concluding that Petitioner had demonstrated that the claims at issue are more likely than not unpatentable as obvious over Nicholson and Brown. For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner has not established that we abused our discretion in determining that the ’432 patent is not excluded as a technological invention, and that it is more likely than not that claims 1–3, 4 Petitioner’s asserted ground of unpatentability, on which we instituted a trial, is based on the combination of Nicholson and Brown under § 103(a). See Paper 2, 27–63; Dec. 35. 13 5–28, and 30–55 of the ’432 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Nicholson and Brown.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “was made. Req. Reh’g 13–14 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). In the Decision (Dec. 18–19), we noted that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). We further noted in the Decision (Dec. 19) that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). On this record, Nicholson, which was filed on July 14, 2006, and published on January 25, 2007, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.2 Ex. 1034 at [22], [43]. And, Brown, which was filed on June 3, 1996, and issued on April 14, 1998, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.3 Ex. 1035 at [22], [45]. Therefore, based on the current record, both Nicholson and Brown are prior art under § 102(b) as to the challenged claims. In addition, on this record, the publications of the first prior-filed application—U.S. Patent Application Publication No.” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “demonstrated based on the current record that the benefit claim to the third prior-filed application complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120, among which is the requirement that the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides written description support for the challenged claims as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Dec. 26–27. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Once again, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120. As we determined in our Decision, Patent Owner has not shown, at this juncture, that the original disclosure of the second prior-filed application or the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides sufficient written description support for each limitation of the challenged claims. Dec. 23–29. Without this showing, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application. Id. Therefore, on this record, “at the time of the invention” is not August 29, 2001, the filing date of the first prior-filed application, as alleged by Patent Owner, but rather, September 15, 2008, the actual filing date of the application that issued as the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,432
• United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00063 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting CBM review of claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55; it maintained the anticipation and obviousness determinations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “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 previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. 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 may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for petitioner

    “misapply SightSound or Blue Calypso, as alleged by Patent Owner, in determining that the ’432 patent is a covered business method patent, and, therefore, is eligible for a review. Req. Reh’g 1–10 (citing SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338–40 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As we stated in the Decision, a covered business method patent is a patent that “claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” Dec. 5 (quoting AIA § 18(d)(1)). The legislative history of the AIA “explains that the definition of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Final Rule) (quoting 157 CONG. REC. S5432 (daily ed.” slip op. at 4

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “requirements that an applicant must satisfy in order for a later filed application to be accorded the same effect as if it were filed on the same date as an earlier application by the same inventor disclosing the same invention. Those conditions are (1) copendency of the applications, and (2) reference in the later filed to the earlier filed application.” In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). Our reviewing court also explained that a prior-filed application that was not copending with the later-filed application cannot be used to antedate a reference. Id. at 1350.” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Decision, the allegedly technological features appear to have been known in the art, in light of the prior art in the record, and Petitioner has explained sufficiently why claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Dec. 12–13. We also explained that “following Petitioner’s showing that Norefors and Rajasekaran constitute prior art relative to the actual filing date of the ’432 patent, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that the” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,432
• Innovative Environmental Technologies, Inc. v. Peroxychem LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2016 · IPR2016-00198 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13 based on Chowdhury anticipation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Decision to Institute. Notably, we did not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner failed to show anticipation by Chowdhury; instead, we found that, given the information before us and the standards for institution of inter partes review, “Petitioner has demonstrated that Chowdhury is reasonably likely to anticipate the challenged claims.” Dec. 15. Patent Owner’s attempt to read into our Decision to Institute its own conclusion on express anticipation is unwarranted. In rendering a Decision to Institute, the Board need not address every possible issue and take a position on every potential theory of unpatentability; rather, we determine whether the record, at the time, establishes a reasonable likelihood of success. The standard for institution of an inter partes review requires nothing more. In reaching our determination in the Decision to Institute, we acknowledged Patent Owner’s arguments regarding both express anticipation and inherent anticipation and found that the anticipation ground based on Chowdhury, as presented in the Petition, met the standard required for institution of an inter partes review. Dec. 13– 15. We did not overlook these arguments, and Patent Owner has not shown that the Board misapprehended or overlooked any matter in instituting trial in this proceeding.” slip op. at 4

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not propose an express construction of the phrase “composition comprising a water soluble persulfate compound and zero valent iron” in its Preliminary Response. See Dec. 6. In our Decision to Institute, we determined that this phrase required no express construction. Id. Although Patent Owner avers that there is no material dispute regarding claim construction, it urges in its Request for Rehearing a construction that Patent Owner has not previously raised. Req. 4–5. A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to present a new argument about claim construction, notwithstanding its framing as a matter that is not in dispute.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “Decision to Institute. Notably, we did not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner failed to show anticipation by Chowdhury; instead, we found that, given the information before us and the standards for institution of inter partes review, “Petitioner has demonstrated that Chowdhury is reasonably likely to anticipate the challenged claims.” Dec. 15. Patent Owner’s attempt to read into our Decision to Institute its own conclusion on express anticipation is unwarranted. In rendering a Decision to Institute, the Board need not address every possible issue and take a position on every potential theory of unpatentability; rather, we determine whether the record, at the time, establishes a reasonable likelihood of success. The standard for institution of an inter partes review requires nothing more. In reaching our determination in the Decision to Institute, we acknowledged Patent Owner’s arguments regarding both express anticipation and inherent anticipation and found that the anticipation ground based on Chowdhury, as presented in the Petition, met the standard required for institution of an inter partes review. Dec. 13– 15. We did not overlook these arguments, and Patent Owner has not shown that the Board misapprehended or overlooked any matter in instituting trial in this proceeding.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,785,038
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Innovative Memory Systems, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00326 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing

  On rehearing, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 13 based on anticipation by Anderl and obviousness over Anderl or Anderl and Hendry.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “On June 17, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 13, “Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Decision”) an inter partes review in this case. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Request, and we agree that we overlooked the matters identified in the Request. See Reh’g Req. 2–4. Thus, for the reasons stated in the Request, we grant Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. On rehearing, we withdraw our previous Decision and reconsider our Decision in light of the full record, as Patent Owner requests. Id. at 4. Pursuant to this reconsideration, we issue the instant Amended Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “determine that the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, and 13 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’537 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenOther

    “limitation, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that Anderl discloses “said appended information featuring said at least one associated type of permission for accessing the stored data,” as recited in claim 1. Patent Owner focuses narrowly on the value of the data included in protection bytes 43 to 45 of Anderl. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Yet the claim does not focus only on the data alone, but instead recites “appended information.” As the Petition explains, Anderl discloses that the information is appended based on location in file as the value at the particular location. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, Anderl discloses that each file includes prefix section 41 that is located in the first record of each file and contains file identification number 42 and protection bytes 43, 44, and 45. Ex. 1005, 6:57–60. Anderl states that “[t]he protection bytes 43 through 45 specify the file permissions.” Id. at 6:65–66 (emphasis added). As Anderl discloses,” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “not persuaded that “type of permission” is limited to only the type of action that can be performed, e.g., reading or writing, with respect to the data. Instead, the Specification repeatedly refers to the “types of permissions” as “for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“The device, method and system enable various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 2:32–36 (“The present invention enables various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 3:4:26–30 (same). Given this broader usage in the Specification, for purposes of this decision, the “type of permission” is for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data that does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied. The access, if not denied, may include reading from or writing to the stored data. As for “featuring,” we are not persuaded that “featuring,” as used in claim 1 of the ’537 patent is synonymous with “represent,” as Patent Owner contends. A relevant meaning of “featuring” is “to be an important part or aspect of something.” See Ex. 3001. This meaning only requires that the thing that is featured be an important part or aspect, not that it correspond to or represent the thing. Patent Owner does not point us to any disclaimer or definition that would limit this meaning. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Instead, the Specification appears to use the related term “feature” in this ordinary sense. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:54–56 (“As another option, the device may feature a single chip with a microprocessor and firmware for operating the data access features ….”); 5:25– 27 (“A system 10 features a CPU 12 for executing instructions….”); 8:15–19 (“For example, an access control code could be implemented with a combination of different types of data, each of which could again feature a separately selected and assigned data access permission, which optionally and preferably is different for each portion of the data.”). Moreover, the portion of Specification cited by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–61)) makes clear that it only refers to a preferred embodiment and the permissions do not need to be stored as a “code,” i.e., specific information or data representing the permission. See id. at 6:35–36 (“According to preferred embodiments…”), 6:43–47 (“If such a permission is to be stored in an abbreviated code, the code for this particular type of permission could be given as ‘R/W/WP’, for example. Such a code could optionally be stored in the non-volatile 16, for example.” (emphases added)). Such optional language is not sufficient to limit the claimed “appended information” to only something that “represents” the permission, such as a code. See Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he use of ‘may’ signifies that the inventors did not intend to limit [the claim]. . . .”); Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that non-limiting examples are not sufficient to redefine a term).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,324,537
• Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Novartis AGRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00084 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Novartis’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place for claims 1–3 and 8–10 because it had not abused its discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “review trial, the Board “will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We did not overlook this argument in reaching our decision to institute trial. While Novartis’ argument raises an issue of fact to be considered at trial, it does not directly refute the testimony of Par’s expert, Dr. Jorgensen, who relies on Lemke’s Table 16-1 for a slightly different purpose. Dr. Jorgensen testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, based on Lemke, that alcohol, phenol, amine, carboxylic acid, ester, and amide groups have the greatest solubilizing potential in a polyfunctional molecule. Ex. 1003 ¶ 83. Because, according to Dr. Jorgensen, some of these groups have known drawbacks, he concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve solubility would have had reason to modify rapamycin to add amino, hydroxyl, or carboxylate groups. Id. ¶¶ 83–84. Contrary to Novartis’ argument, Dr. Jorgensen did not rely on the exact figures of Table 16-1; this may be appropriate, given the fact that Lemke reports the figures as “predictions.” Ex. 1008, 115. The parties will have the opportunity to explore this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 5,665,772
• Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. v. Signal IP, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 27, 2016 · IPR2016-00366 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the decision to institute on claims 17 and 21 under Ground 1 and deny institution on Grounds 2–5.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “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 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “partes review of claims 17, 21, and 22 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (Ex. 1001, “the ’007 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). In our Decision to Institute (Paper 7, “Decision to Institute” or “Dec.”), we instituted a trial to review the patentability of claims 17 and 21 based on anticipation of those claims by Schousek1 (Ground 1), but denied institution as to Petitioner’s challenges based on obviousness of claims 17 and 21 over Schousek and Fu2 (Ground 2), claim 22 over Schousek, Fu, and Cashler3 (Ground 3), claims 17 and 21 over Blackburn4, JP 2585, and Schousek (Ground 4), and claim 22 over Blackburn, JP 258, Schousek, and Cashler (Ground 5). Dec. 18. Petitioner requests rehearing of the Decision to Institute with respect to Grounds 2 and 3. Paper 9 (“Request” or “Req. Reh’g”). Having considered Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner’s Request is denied for the reasons provided below.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,012,007
• Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · IPR2015-00159 · APJ Kerry Begley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 8, and 15–25 are unpatentable: Pong anticipates claims 1–3, 8, 15, 16, and 25, and Pong and Smith render claims 17–24 obvious; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,2 and Amazon.com, Inc. (collectively, “Initial Petitioners”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 8, and 11–25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’121 patent”). Pet. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 8, 11, and 15–25, and instituted an inter partes review of these claims. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”). We, however, did not institute review of claims 12–14, because we determined the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to these claims. Id. at 23–30.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Dr. Horst’s testimony that as a result, from the perspective of the presence bit vector, “every processor indicated as storing a copy of the memory line in its cache is storing a valid copy.” Ex. 1014 ¶ A-11; see Pet. 26–27. In other words, as Dr. Horst testifies, “because a write update protocol always updates caches to keep them valid,” “when a cache line is present[,] it is necessarily valid.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 23; see Reply 17–18. Indeed, Dr. Oklobdzija agrees that because the write update protocol “force[s the caches] to update their value for a cache line every time it changes”—as Pong discloses— “every processor that has the cache line will have the line in a valid state.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 90 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 ¶ 48; see also Tr. 115:1–23 (Patent Owner conceding that in a write update protocol, any cached copies could be “considered . . . to be valid” because they are “kept usable” and “updated”). Accordingly, based on Pong’s disclosures, as well as the explanatory testimony of Dr. Horst in addition to Dr. Oklobdzija, we determine that in the write update protocol, a set bit in Pong’s presence bit vector represents that the corresponding cached copy is present and valid.” slip op. at 44

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. OBVIOUSNESS OVER PONG AND SMITH We turn to the instituted obviousness ground alleging that claims 17–” slip op. at 73

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “addresses Koster—a prior art U.S. patent of record as Exhibit 1009 that was filed on July 13, 2004 and issued on April 13, 2004—Patent Owner’s failure to demonstrate enablement of the proposed substitute claims results in a failure to demonstrate novelty and non-obviousness of the proposed substitute claims over the prior art of record. When arguing how the limitations of the proposed substitute claims distinguish them from the disclosures of the references of record, Patent Owner’s Motion addresses Koster only by asserting that “[a]s to . . . Koster . . . , because, as discussed above, all of the substitute claims find support in the [’]347 Application, . . . Koster . . . is not prior art to any of the proposed substitute claims.” Mot. 22. Because Patent Owner does not persuade us that the proposed substitute claims are enabled by the disclosure in the ’347 Application, we find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s suggestion that the proposed substitute claims are entitled to the filing date of the ’347 Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“For a patent to claim priority from the filing date of its provisional application, . . . the specification of the provisional must . . . enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the non-provisional application.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted); Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The earlier application must contain a written description of the subject matter of the interference count, and must meet the enablement requirement.”); see also Novo Nordisk Pharm., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[If] the 1983 PCT application was . . . not enabled, Novo would not be able to rely upon the application’s priority date to overcome the Brewer patent.”). Accordingly, we also find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s assertion basis for asserting that the proposed substitute claims are patentable over Koster (by itself or in combination with other references of record), we conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of demonstrating patentability of the proposed substitute claims over the references of record. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (upholding Board’s requirement that patent owner “show patentable distinction [of the substitute claims] over the prior art of record”); Opp. 1–4. Thus, Patent Owner has not met its burden for proposed substitute claims 26–34.” slip op. at 84

  Patent outcomesUS 7,296,121 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,296,121
• Google Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · CBM2015-00160 · APJ Michael R Zecher · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, and 11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Stefik and obvious over Stefik with ordinary skill knowledge; the contingent motion to substitute claim 37 is granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “claims of the ’280 patent at issue in this proceeding based on the same grounds of unpatentability. The Petition in Case CBM2015-00160 was accompanied by a Motion for Joinder that requests we join Apple as a party to this proceeding. Pursuant to § 324 and § 18(a) of the AIA, we instituted another covered business method patent review proceeding as to claims 1, 5, and 11 of the ’280 patent, and then granted Apple’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 14.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “transitional program for covered business method patents of claims 1, 5, 11, 12, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,774,280 B2 (“the ’280 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Taking into account the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, we determined that the information presented in the Petition establishes that claims 1, 5, and 11 of the ’280 patent are more likely than not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). We, however, determined that the information presented in the Petition did not establish that claims 12 and 22 of the ’280 patent are more likely than not unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011) (“AIA”),2 we instituted this covered business method patent review proceeding on June 24, 2015, only as to claims 1, 5, and 11 of the ’280 patent. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “2. Level of Skill in the Art There is sufficient evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge level of a person with ordinary skill in the art. Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Goldberg, attests that a person with ordinary skill in the art in the relevant time frame would be an individual who (1) possesses a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field; and (2) has at least two years of experience with digital content distribution and/or computer security. Ex. 1014 ¶ 10. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, agrees with Dr. Goldberg’s assessment. Compare Ex. 1014 ¶ 10, with Ex. 2009 ¶ 16. In addition, we note that the prior art of record in this proceeding—namely, Stefik—is indicative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 48

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “8. Summary For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed, substitute independent claim 37 satisfies the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221 and is patentable over the prior art. Accordingly, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel independent claim 1 of the ’280 patent and replace it with proposed, substitute independent claim 37.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 7,774,280 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,774,280
• Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb CompanyRehearing denied
  PTAB · May 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01537 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution of inter partes review of claims 1–15 in place based on a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended a matter in relation to our decision regarding claim 11. We are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that the claimed storage temperature range would have been obvious in view of Carpenter (Ex. 1004, 16), even if the reference does not mention expressly a specific temperature range. Dec. 13. As noted in our Decision, Carpenter teaches that proteins formulated under certain constraints would have been suitable for commercialization, i.e., have “a shelf life of 18 months.” Dec. 13; Ex. 1004, 16. At this point in the proceeding, we find the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Staples, to be persuasive that the conditions recited in claim 11, including the temperature range of 2 to 8 oC for at least 12 months, were known to be the minimum requirements for commercialization of a protein formulation, and, therefore, an ordinary artisan would have understood Carpenter to suggest such conditions. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 57).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “[i]n general, we consider Petitioner’s argument to be persuasive based on the record before us because Cohen teaches a specific dosage of CTLA4Ig and it is reasonably likely that those of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine an effective concentration for a subcutaneously administered formulation from that dosage. Dec. 10. We noted further that given the effective dosage reported in Cohen, the absence of any specific information about CTLA4Ig indicating that an ordinary artisan could not have determined an effective concentration for subcutaneous administration using routine optimization, and the absence of evidence of secondary considerations, we are persuaded at this point in the proceeding that the recited concentration is likely to be an unpatentable modification. Id.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “relation to our decision regarding claim 11. We are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that the claimed storage temperature range would have been obvious in view of Carpenter (Ex. 1004, 16), even if the reference does not mention expressly a specific temperature range. Dec. 13. As noted in our Decision, Carpenter teaches that proteins formulated under certain constraints would have been suitable for commercialization, i.e., have “a shelf life of 18 months.” Dec. 13; Ex. 1004, 16. At this point in the proceeding, we find the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Staples, to be persuasive that the conditions recited in claim 11, including the temperature range of 2 to 8 oC for at least 12 months, were known to be the minimum requirements for commercialization of a protein formulation, and, therefore, an ordinary artisan would have understood Carpenter to suggest such conditions. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 57).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “relation to our decision regarding claim 11. We are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that the claimed storage temperature range would have been obvious in view of Carpenter (Ex. 1004, 16), even if the reference does not mention expressly a specific temperature range. Dec. 13. As noted in our Decision, Carpenter teaches that proteins formulated under certain constraints would have been suitable for commercialization, i.e., have “a shelf life of 18 months.” Dec. 13; Ex. 1004, 16. At this point in the proceeding, we find the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Staples, to be persuasive that the conditions recited in claim 11, including the temperature range of 2 to 8 oC for at least 12 months, were known to be the minimum requirements for commercialization of a protein formulation, and, therefore, an ordinary artisan would have understood Carpenter to suggest such conditions. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 57).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,476,239

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.