A request for rehearing is generally considered the IPR equivalent of an end-of-the-game Hail Mary pass, but just like in football, sometimes it works, as illustrated by the Board’s reversal of its prior decision denying review in Handi Quilter, Inc. & Tacony Corporation v. Bernina International AG, IPR2013-00270.
The Board originally denied review based on its determination that the Petitioner only showed that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the relied-on references, but not why the person of ordinary skill would have done so. Decision at 2. Following the Petitioner’s request for a hearing, though, the Board had a change of heart and decided to institute inter partes review. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision” and the rehearing “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Decision at 23. Petitioners here successfully argued that the Board had previously misapprehended its argument (supported by declaration testimony) that its primary reference (Watabe) itself provided sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the secondary references and combine them with Watabe. Thus, the Board instituted review.