Takeaway: When the Board determines that a claim includes a computer-related means-plus-function limitation without an algorithm being disclosed in the specification for how the function is accomplished, then the claim cannot be construed. Accordingly, the Board is unable to reach a determination on the alleged grounds of unpatentability, and the Board will terminate the proceeding with regard to that claim.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 31, 41, and 45 of the ’775 Patent are unpatentable; and had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 32-40 and 42-44 are unpatentable. The Board was unable to reach a determination on the alleged grounds of unpatentability over prior art for claims 1-15, and terminated the proceeding with respect to those claims. The ’775 Patent relates to “a system and method for data storage, manipulation and retrieval in a self-referential logical table of a database.” Continue reading
Takeaway: To qualify as a printed publication, a document must be generally available and “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims, claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-20, and 22-24, of the ’178 Patent are unpatentable. The ’178 Patent relates to a massager with an inductively chargeable power source. Continue reading
Takeaway: A claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features that are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity so that the claim will not monopolize the abstract idea.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioners had demonstrated by a preponderance that claims 1-23 of the ’382 patent are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This led the Board to conclude that Petitioner had shown these claims to be unpatentable. Continue reading
Takeaway: In order to be a qualified expert pursuant to FRE 702, one does not have to be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but has to be qualified in the pertinent technology itself.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that both challenged claims of the ’314 Patent, claims 1 and 2, were unpatentable. The ’314 Patent discusses a way to assist deaf, hard of hearing, or otherwise hearing impaired individuals to use the telephone. Continue reading
Takeaway: The Board did not find that an alteration of Petitioner’s positions concerning its challenge is a basis for dismissing the Petition.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the instituted claims, 2-12, 14, and 16, of the ’536 patent are unpatentable. The ’536 patent generally relates to “developing intelligence in a computer or digital network by creating and manipulating information containers with dynamic interactive registers in a computer network.” Continue reading
Takeaway: The Board may grant an extension of the deadline for serving supplemental evidence where service of such evidence is delayed for a short period of time due to difficulties obtaining a certified copy of the reference from a foreign patent office.
In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request for an extension of the deadline for serving supplemental evidence.
According to Petitioner, it was unable to serve a certified copy of “the application file of the Teramura reference” to Patent Owner until after the deadline for supplemental evidence “due to difficulties with the Canadian Patent Office, including the unavailability of a three-day turnaround for certified copies and closings of government offices in Ottawa around October 22nd, 2014.” Continue reading
Takeaway: The Board cannot institute an inter partes review where the petitioner had the opportunity to substantially control another party’s defense against a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent if the complaint was served more than one year before the petition was filed.
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,462,713.
The Board began its analysis by considering Patent Owner’s argument that inter partes review is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted based on a petition “filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Continue reading