- Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 30, 2017 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding the § 103 and written-description challenges previously considered under § 325(d), and the remaining written-description and indefiniteness challenges insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that we should exercise our discretion in denying institution of review based on Petitioner’s § 103 challenges because the same art and arguments were considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. There is no dispute that Saggio and Lee were expressly considered by the Examiner and discussed in the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance in the May 24, 2016 Notice for Allowance. See Ex. 1008, 86–88. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner considered expressly the teachings of Saggio and Lee, and explained in detail that neither one of these disclosed the claimed “elastic fastener.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner expressly also considered Donaldson and found that it was “cumulative with Lee [ ] in that both references disclose that moving mechanical components must be used to detach the balloons.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on our review of the record, including the claim language and the Specification of the ’779 patent, we agree with Patent Owner’s position. Here, the restriction of the claimed elastic ring is limited such that the balloon, if filled with a sufficient amount of water, is detachable by (1) gravity or (2) by gravity combined with a manually applied acceleration of the tube. Further, we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know when the amount of water has reached a “sufficient amount,” because the elastic rings would allow detachment by gravity or by gravity and manually applied acceleration of the tube. See Prelim. Resp. 42. Indeed, the claim language itself provides the conditions” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the effective filing date of the ’779 patent (“POSA”) was a person having general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in a technical science or engineering. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 10–14). For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, 2 Claims 38, 46, 54, and 60 issued as claims 4, 7, 10, and 13. and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’779 patent and cited prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyOther
“Petitioner argues that the present record is different than the one before the Examiner. Pet. 80. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Kamrin was not before the Examiner. Id. Petitioner contends that “one of the issues in this petition is inherency of the prior art references, which benefits from the consideration of expert testimony.” Id. at 81. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we disagree with Petitioner’s position. The technology here does not appear to be particularly complex, and the Examiner’s explanation shows that he expressly considered the issues of inherency, and offered detailed findings why the functional limitations related to the elastic fastener were not necessarily present in the art at issue. See Ex. 1008, 87–88. Although not referred to expressly in the Examiner’s explanation, the Information Disclosure Sheet considered by the Examiner includes the Petitions in PGR2016-00030 and PGR2016-00031, which contain similar explanations of inherency to those at issue in this case. See PGR2016-00031, Paper 2, 43–45 (Petition discussing inherency issue with respect to Lee). Although the Examiner’s explanation does not refer to those papers expressly, the fact that those papers were listed on an IDS is, nevertheless, circumstantial evidence that Petitioner’s inherency arguments were considered when the Examiner provided his explanation concerning inherency. See Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kamrin fails to even address Donaldson’s use of a mechanical means, i.e., a spring, to release the balloon. Prelim. Resp. 32. Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Kamrin’s testimony meaningfully distinguishes the record that is before us from the record that was before the Examiner.” slip op. at 12
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,533,779 - Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. v. L. Douglas GrahamInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2017 · PGR2017-00020 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–28 because the Patent Owner disclaimed every challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDecided for patent owner
“As prior panels have held, and we agree, a statutory disclaimer filed prior to institution of trial in a case should not be construed as a request for adverse judgment. See, e.g., Corvus Pharm., Inc. v. U.S.A., PGR2016- 00042, Paper 10, 5 (PTAB March 31, 2017). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding” and “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . (2) [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (emphasis added). The term “trial” in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) means “a contested case instituted by the Board based upon a petition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Nothing in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) requires us to construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment prior to institution of a trial.1 III.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“A patentee may “make disclaimer of any complete claim . . . . Such disclaimer shall be in writing, and recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office; and it shall thereafter be considered as part of the original patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). When a patent owner files a statutory disclaimer with its preliminary response, “no post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,387,246 - Avx Corporation v. Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 16, 2017 · PGR2017-00010 · APJ Sally C Medley · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied AVX’s rehearing request, leaving institution on claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–19 unchanged because AVX showed no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was 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
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“with “dielectric grains.” Req. Reh’g 3–4. This is a new argument. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument that was never presented by Petitioner in the first place. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).1 Petitioner’s rehearing request in this regard is telling, because it never directs us to places in the Petition that we overlooked, but rather takes various disjunctive statements from Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Patent Owner’s evidence to contend that we overlooked Patent Owner’s alleged admission of this issue. Req. Reh’g 3–4. The request for rehearing is misplaced because the burden to show the claims are unpatentable is on Petitioner, not Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Petitioner must put forth its case in its Petition. 1 Petitioner argues that it requested leave to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments made in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in a sur-reply, but that we denied that request. Req. Reh’g 3; Paper 9. Petitioner’s implicit due process argument is misplaced. It is incumbent upon Petitioner to make its case in its Petition. Petitioner cannot rely on a sur-reply to fix what should have been in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“with “dielectric grains.” Req. Reh’g 3–4. This is a new argument. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument that was never presented by Petitioner in the first place. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).1 Petitioner’s rehearing request in this regard is telling, because it never directs us to places in the Petition that we overlooked, but rather takes various disjunctive statements from Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Patent Owner’s evidence to contend that we overlooked Patent Owner’s alleged admission of this issue. Req. Reh’g 3–4. The request for rehearing is misplaced because the burden to show the claims are unpatentable is on Petitioner, not Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Petitioner must put forth its case in its Petition.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached
“capacitors be proven to be prior art. Req. Reh’g 7–9. Rather, Petitioner argues, “it was not necessary to prove that the Group 39 capacitors themselves were prior art, only that they faithfully represent products made, offered for sale, and/or sold before the priority date.” Id. at 7. Petitioner’s argument is misplaced because we considered the Group 39 capacitors and representations made by Petitioner with respect to the Group 39 capacitors. Indeed, it was Petitioner that asserted in its Petition that “the Group 39 capacitors that were in on sale, sold, and in public use before the effective filing date of the ’381 patent.” Pet. 65. Thus, we did not err in addressing Petitioner’s own argument when we explained that Petitioner had failed to show that the Group 39 capacitors, purchased four years after the effective filing date of the ’381 patent, was prior art. Dec. 28–30.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,326,381 - Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,398,038 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419 - Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Intex Marketing Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00003 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Bestway’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for Ground 2 because the petition’s obviousness ground was confusing and inadequately specified.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“of discretion. The requirements are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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. Petitioner, referring to its Ground 2, argues that the Board” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied merits
“As we stated in the Institution Decision, Petitioner’s articulation of Ground 2 is confusing. Institution Decision 19. Petitioner now implies that we should have discerned that Ground 2 actually is two separate grounds, a two-reference ground (Peterson and Fireman) for claims 18–22 and either a separate three-reference ground or a different two-reference ground (Guan ’797 and Fireman) for claim 30. Reh’g Req. 2, 4.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 9,254,240 - Pgr2017-00003OtherPTAB · Jun 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00003 · PGR · Order
The supplied document contains no decision text, so its disposition and grounds cannot be determined.
NonePatents in suitUS 9,254,240 - David’S Bridal, Inc. v. Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 15, 2017 · PGR2016-00041 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted to consider David’s Bridal’s acquiescence argument but otherwise denied; institution of review of the patent’s sole claim remained denied.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. The requirements are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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. Petitioner argues that the Board: (1) “misapprehended and overlooked” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“SUMMARY Petitioner, David’s Bridal, Inc., requests rehearing of the Board’s decision (Paper 11) (“Institution Decision”), entered February 22, 2017, denying institution of inter partes review of the sole claim of U.S. Patent D744,723 (Ex. 1002) (“the ’723 patent”). Paper 12 (“Reh’g Req.”). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request is granted to the extent that we address Petitioner’s “acquiescence argument,” but denied in all other respects.” slip op. at 2
None - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 5, 2017 · PGR2016-00031 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting PGR despite the district court ruling, secondary-considerations evidence, and § 325(d) arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“I. LEGAL STANDARDS When rehearing a decision whether to institute post-grant review, we review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in” the briefing. Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“§ 325(d), Req. Reh’g 7–11, we disagree. At bottom, § 325(d) is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were presented to the Office.”) (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument amounts to a disagreement about how the panel viewed the Examiner’s treatment of the art and arguments from the related petition for post-grant review in PGR2015-00018. See Req. Reh’g 7–11. Patent Owner fails to point out anything in the prosecution history we overlooked or misapprehended. Id. Instead, the bulk of Patent Owner’s Request is devoted to new legal arguments, not found anywhere in the Preliminary Response, regarding how it believes we should interpret the standard for institution of post-grant review. A party seeking reconsideration “is not supposed to treat the [Board’s] initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the [Board’s] rulings.” Polsby v. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690 (MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2000). We decline to reweigh these same sections of the prosecution history or reconsider the meaning § 324(a) and § 325(d) based on new arguments advanced for the first time in a request for rehearing. Thus, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in applying § 325(d) to this case.” slip op. at 10
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“First, on this record, we are not persuaded that the district court’s preliminary injunction decision in Tinnus II controlled our independent review of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in our proceeding. To the contrary, our reviewing court has noted that a prior judicial opinion does not bind the Board’s review. Thus, generally, we are not required to reach the same conclusion as the district court. See Novartis AG v. Noven Pharms. Inc., No. 2016-1678, 1679, 2017 WL 1229742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017) (“Novartis alleges that a fundamental legal error pervades the PTAB’s Final Written Decisions: the PTAB unlawfully reached different conclusions than our court and the [district court], which addressed the ‘same’ arguments and the ‘same’ evidence and found the Asserted Claims nonobvious in two prior opinions. . . . [E]ven if the record were the same, Novartis’s argument would fail as a matter of law.”). Second, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s characterization that a district court’s standard of a “substantial question of validity” transfers so neatly to our institution standard of “more likely than not.” Req. Reh’g 4. Although “a showing of a substantial question of invalidity, requires less proof than the clear and convincing standard to show actual invalidity,” Erico Int’l Corp. v. Vutec Corp., 516 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008), it still requires a showing that “in light of the presumptions and burdens that will inhere at trial on the merits” the attacker has “a likelihood of success” in invalidating the patent, Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus., Inc., 75 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The ultimate question, however, is whether the challenger’s evidence of invalidity is sufficiently persuasive that it is likely to overcome the presumption of patent validity.”). In contrast, there are no presumptions of validity to be overcome in proceedings before the Board. Third, on the record before us, we do not agree that “identical arguments and evidence” are at issue in our proceeding and before the district court as Patent Owner contends. Req. Reh’g 4. For example, the district court conducted a hearing where witnesses gave testimony and were subject to cross examination. Ex. 2003, 1 (noting hearing), 14 (noting testimony by an expert at hearing regarding invalidity). In contrast, at the pre-institution stage for a post-grant review, testimony submitted provided by the parties has not been cross-examined in our proceeding. Moreover, our rules require us to view disputed issues of material fact created by the testimony of the competing declarants in the light most favorable to the Petitioner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c). There is no similar requirement in a preliminary injunction ruling. Further, even if the same record were before us, this would not constrain our independent review of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties for the purposes of determining whether to institute a post-grant review. See Novartis AG, 2017 WL 1229742, at *3.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Req. Reh’g 5–7. We disagree. Initially, we note that aside from the fact that we must be careful in assigning definitive weight to evidence of secondary considerations at the institution stage before Petitioner has had a chance to respond, even when we evaluated that evidence preliminarily, we did not determine the arguments and evidence presented by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response to be sufficient to preclude institution. See Dec. 32–33. As we pointed out in our Decision, we reviewed the evidence submitted by the Patent Owner, including evidence purported to show commercial success, copying, and praise. See Dec. 32. However, at that stage in the proceeding, we did not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Id. Thus, Patent Owner has not established that the Board overlooked some evidence it was required to consider for institution. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,315,282 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 5, 2017 · PGR2016-00030 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in its institution decision concerning the district court ruling, secondary considerations, or § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“I. LEGAL STANDARDS When rehearing a decision whether to institute post-grant review, we review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in” the briefing. Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“C. Improper Application of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) As for Patent Owner’s arguments that we misapplied 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), Req. Reh’g 10–15, we disagree. At bottom, § 325(d) is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were presented to the Office.”) (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument amounts to a disagreement about how the panel viewed the Examiner’s treatment of the art and arguments from the related petition for post-grant review in PGR2015-00018. See Req. Reh’g 10–11. Patent Owner fails to point out anything in the prosecution history we overlooked or misapprehended. Id. Instead, the bulk of Patent Owner’s Request is devoted to new legal arguments, not found anywhere in the Preliminary Response, regarding how it believes we should interpret the standard for institution of post-grant review. A party seeking reconsideration “is not supposed to treat the [Board’s] initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the [Board’s] rulings.” Polsby v. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690 (MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2000). We decline to reweigh these same sections of the prosecution history or reconsider the meaning § 324(a) and § 325(d) based on new arguments advanced for the first time in a request for rehearing. Thus, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in applying § 325(d) to this case.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also asserts that we misapprehended the evidence that it did present. Req. Reh’g 6–9. We disagree. Much of Patent Owner’s discussion amounts to little more than an effort to have us re-weigh the evidence that was before us. See Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (“A motion that merely republishes the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind.”). As we pointed out in our Decision, we accorded the evidence presented little weight because, aside from the fact that we must be careful in assigning definitive weight to evidence of secondary considerations at the institution stage before Petitioner has had a chance to respond, even when we evaluated that evidence preliminarily, we ascertained numerous problems with the evidence that significantly undercut the weight to be accorded. See Dec. 32–33. In particular, we discern that much of the testimony submitted consisted of vague and unsupported assertions deserving of little weight. Although Patent Owner is correct that there is no requirement that the testimony be corroborated, Req. Reh’g 9, a fact finder is entitled to take any corroboration (or lack thereof) into account in determining the weight that the testimony should be accorded. See, e.g., Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting certain testimony was admissible “though absent corroboration, it may have limited weight”); United States v. Ibisevic, 675 F.3d 342, (4th Cir. 2012) (noting jury entitled to give different weight to corroborated and uncorroborated testimony); United States v. Parry, 649 F.2d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1981) (noting a “defense discounted by the jury when standing alone, may have been believed when bolstered by corroborative testimony”). Our assessment giving corroborated testimony greater weight is additionally supported by the lack of cross-examination of these witnesses. See Martin–Mendoza v. INS, 499 F.2d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1974) (approving the hearing officer’s determination that the “weight [of a sworn statement] is necessarily impaired by the fact that the affiant could not be presented for cross-examination”). Moreover, we have broad discretion to determine what weight to give the evidence before us. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that Board has discretion to give weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A]ccord[ing] little weight to broad conclusory statements [in expert testimony before the Board] that it determined were unsupported by corroborating references [was] within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions that we erred in weighing its evidence.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,242,749
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.