In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review, finding that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any challenged claim. The ’887 patent relates to “a dishwasher basket designed to hold baby bottle nipples, non-spill cup valves, feeding straws, and the like.” Continue reading
Monthly Archives: December 2014
Denying Second Request for Rehearing IPR2014-00319
Takeaway: The parties are not permitted to request panel expansion.
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for relief in the form of a second rehearing of the decision not to institute inter partes review. In particular, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s Notice had failed to show sufficient basis for a second request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.21(c)(1). Continue reading
Granting Leave to File Motion to Strike Deposition Testimony CBM2014-00102, 106, 108, 112
In its Order, the Board authorized Petitioner to file a Motion to Strike questions and answers in the transcript of the deposition of Petitioner’s expert.
Petitioner requested a call with the Board during the deposition of its expert because it objected to the scope of questioning by Patent Owner’s counsel. Continue reading
Denying Institution IPR2014-00854
In its Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’564 patent. Consequently, the Board declined to institute inter partes review of any claim of the ’564 patent. The Petition was thus denied, and no trial was instituted. Continue reading
Denying Rehearing of Institution Denial IPR2014-00506
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing of its decision declining to institute inter partes review of claims 13-14, 16, 20-22, 24-25, 27, 31, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,974,569 B2 and also denied its request for panel expansion. Continue reading
Denying Institution IPR2014-00842
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review, finding that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any challenged claim. The ’748 patent relates to “methods of treating cancer using ErbB receptor-directed cancer therapies.” Continue reading
Denying Leave to File a Motion for Additional Discovery IPR2014-01357, 1362
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request to file a motion for additional discovery. Patent Owner requested additional discovery directed to the relationship between Petitioner and certain defendants, Dell and HP, in infringement lawsuits brought by Patent Owner in the Eastern District of Texas. Both lawsuits against Dell and HP were filed more than one year prior to the filing of the Petition. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner was controlling the district litigation for Dell and HP. Patent Owner based its contention on Petitioner indemnifying Dell and HP as a supplier of liquid crystal displays. Petitioner acknowledged that it indemnifies Dell and HP for patent infringement, but it does not control the District Court litigations in which they are involved.
Order Regarding Deposition IPR2014-00312
In its Order, the Board ordered Patent Owner to make its expert Dr. Bordeauducq available for cross-examination in the United States at a time acceptable to both parties. Alternatively, the Board gave Patent Owner the option of requesting the withdrawal of Dr. Bordeauducq’s declaration from the proceeding. Continue reading
Denying Motion for Joinder IPR 2013-00419
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, which had been filed more than three months after oral argument had taken place and within two months of an upcoming statutory due date for the Board to issue its final written decision. At the time of the filing of the Motion for Joinder, all events for the trial before the Board had concluded except for the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00416
All challenged claims found unpatentable
In its Final Written Decision, the Board decided that Petitioner had demonstrated that claims 1, 6-8, 17, and 18 of the ’501 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Probst under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); and that claims 1, 4-10, 17, and 18 of the ’501 patent are unpatentable as having been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Scholl taken in combination with Probst. Continue reading