In its Order, the Board excluded certain slides of Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits. Petitioner objected to those slides because they contained (1) a new picture of Figure 2 that was not presented identically in the trial history; and (2) lines which had been altered in that figure. Patent Owner argued that the portions of the objected to slides are intended to be a tutorial on the patent at issue and are based on descriptions in its brief, but acknowledged that the graphics do not appear in the brief or other papers. Continue reading
Monthly Archives: July 2014
Denying Motion for Leave to File Motion for Additional Discovery IPR2014-00115
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Additional Discovery. Patent Owner noted that during the deposition of one of Petitioner’s declarants, the declarant testified that she had not authorized anyone, including her employer, to sign her initial declaration, that she did not approve or even review the declaration, and that there were changes from her initial translation in the translation that was eventually filed. Thus, Patent Owner requested additional discovery to determine the circumstances surrounding the changes made to the translation before it was filed with the Board. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00180
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all challenged claims of the ’068 Patent (claims 1, 3-5, 9-13, 15, 22-24, 26, 28, and 33) are unpatentable. The ’068 Patent is directed to a method and system of controlling operation of a diffusion appliance to treat the atmosphere within an enclosed space. Specifically, the ’068 Patent discloses controlling a diffusion appliance according to a plurality of control schemes, each of which defines the timing of operation of the appliance and the flow rate of the liquid to be diffused into a space. Continue reading
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00337
Takeaway: A patent or published application can qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on benefit of an earlier filed provisional application, but the provisional application does not qualify as prior art.
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1-17 of the ’415 Patent. According to the Board based solely on the Petition without any Preliminary Patent Owner Response, Petitioner had not established that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on proving that any of these claims were unpatentable. Continue reading
Denying Request for Rehearing for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00252
In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s previous Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review of certain claims of the ’786 Patent. According to the Board, it had not misapprehended the pertinent law in instituting inter partes review. Continue reading
Decision Regarding Standard for Claim Construction IPR2014-00200
In its Order, the Board addressed the appropriate claim construction to be utilized in the instant proceeding, as well as a Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission.
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-20 of the ’320 Patent on May 9, 2014. The Board construed certain claim terms in its Decision to Institute using the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard. The ’320 Patent then expired on July 1, 2014. Continue reading
Decision Denying Institution IPR2014-00353
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1-30 of the ‘628 patent because Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The ‘628 patent relates to verifying the delivery and content of e-mail messages, and specifically, “an electronic message system that creates and records a digital signature of each electronic message sent through the system.” Continue reading
Denying Request for Rehearing of Decision Not To Institute IPR2014-00317
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing of the Board’s denial of institution of an inter partes review of claim 30 of the ‘132 patent. The Board concluded that it had not misapprehended or overlooked the teachings of Johnson, the alleged anticipatory reference. Continue reading
Decision Granting Additional Discovery IPR2014-00097, 98
In its Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery. In particular, the Board ordered Petitioner to provide a copy of the complete file history of one of Petitioner’s patent applications that had gone abandoned. Continue reading
Expunging Unauthorized Motion to Exclude and Reply to Preliminary Response IPR2014-00439
In its Order, the Board expunged Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude and its Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response because Petitioner failed to obtain the Board’s authorization to file either paper. Continue reading