PTAB Denies Inter Partes Review Where Petitioner Fails to Provide a Contemporaneous Motivation to Combine Prior Art and the Prior Art Omits Several Claimed Limitations

Aug 10, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The Petitioner argued that the claimed video visit system is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Bulriss, Hesse, and Rae. The PTAB disagreed, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing (1) a proper motivation to combine the prior art references and (2) that the prior art disclosed each limitation of the claims of the ’816 Patent.

With respect to the motivation to combine the prior art references, the Petitioner argued that problems regarding latency disclosed in the ’816 Patent would provide the necessary motivation. However, the PTAB found that the Petitioner provided no evidence that those problems were actually known in the art before the invention of the ’816 Patent. In particular, the Patent Owner’s own statements in the ’816 Patent were insufficient to show that the problems addressed by the ’816 Patent were known to anyone other than the inventors.

Regarding the missing claim limitations, the PTAB held that the Petitioner failed to show that the prior art disclosed two limitations of the claims of the ’816 Patent: (1) the monitoring of the video visits and (2) scheduling of the video visits in advance. The PTAB noted that the section of Bulriss relied on by the Petitioner to disclose monitoring of video visits did not explicitly disclose monitoring. Instead, according to the PTAB, the Petitioner conflated two separate modes of operation disclosed in Bulriss—one mode is unmonitored and the other mode is broadcast to all users, but not necessarily monitored. The PTAB also agreed with the Patent Owner that Bulriss failed to disclose, and even taught away from, scheduling video visits in advance. The system in Bulriss facilitates contemporaneous communications within a courtroom. The PTAB reasoned that such contemporaneous communications are not amenable to scheduling because they must occur at the time of the courtroom proceeding. Accordingly, the PTAB found that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden and declined to institute the requested inter partes review.

Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., Case IPR2016-00267 (PTAB June 3, 2016). [Turner (opinion), Benoit, and Braden]

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.