In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that all challenged claims (claims 8-12) of U.S. Patent No. 8,301,466 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ’466 patent relates to “providing a method for consumers to request their medical records from health care providers and store their medical records for online access.”
Monthly Archives: October 2015
Institution Under Section 101 Denied Where Patent Required Particular Electronic Searching Process CBM2015-00113
In its Decision, the Board instituted covered business method patent review for prior art challenges, but denied institution of challenges brought under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. The ‘464 patent “relates to identifying a work, such as a digital audio or video file, without the need to modify the work,” which “can be accomplished through the extraction of features from or about the work, and comparison of those extracted features with records of a database or library.” Continue reading
Denying Institution Although Petitioner’s Economic Motive for Filing Petition Was Not Abuse of Process IPR2015-01018
In its Decision, the Board did not institute inter partes review of any challenged claim of the ‘059 patent. The ‘059 patent “is directed to a method for controlling access to a sensitive prescription drug prone to potential abuse or diversion, by utilizing a central pharmacy and database to track all prescriptions for the sensitive drug.” Continue reading
Claims Not Found Unpatentable Where Cited Art Was Not Shown To Be Analogous IPR2014-00732
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-12 of the ’748 patent are unpatentable. The Board instituted inter partes review based on the following challenges to claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 were alleged as obvious over Spirov, Bathiche, and Shkolnikov; (2) claims 4, 8, and 9 were as alleged obvious over Spirov, Bathiche, Shkolnikov, and Fouche; and (3) claims 6 and 7 were alleged as obvious over Spirov, Bathiche, Shkolnikov, and Barr. Continue reading
Denying Institution Where Claim Terminology is Construed as Defined in the Specification IPR2015-00675
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for an inter partes review as to each of challenged claims 1-6, 8, and 9 of the ‘530 patent. Thus, a trial was not instituted.
Thesis Does Not Qualify As Prior Art IPR2015-01033
In its Decision, the board declined to institute inter partes review of claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,327,011. The ’011 patent relates to a streaming media buffering system.
Reverse Auction Claims Found Ineligible for Patent Protection CBM2014-00119
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all of the challenged claims (1-39) of the ’211 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. The ’211 Patent is drawn to a method of conducting a telephone- or Internet-based reverse auction, where the reverse auction is transmitted to users on a medium. Continue reading
Statutory Disclaimer Is Not Always Treated As An Adverse Judgment IPR2015-00736
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. The Board had denied institution of inter partes review of the ’591 patent because Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253. Petitioner argued that the Board should have considered this disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment. The Board did not designate the Decision Denying Institution as an adverse judgment for two reasons. Continue reading
Final Written Decision of Expired Patent Uses Phillips Construction IPR2014-00635
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-13, 15-18, and 21-23 are unpatentable. The ’129 patent, as described by the Board, relates to systems and methods for controlling a computer system, particularly a virtual reality computer system, using audio signals. Petitioner challenged that patentability of the ’129 patent as follows: (1) claims 10 and 11 are allegedly anticipated by Tsumura, (2) claims 5-7, 9-12, 16-18, 22, and 23 are allegedly anticipated by Lytle, (3) claims 1, 12, 13, 15, and 21 are allegedly anticipated by Adachi, (4) claims 1, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 21 are allegedly obvious over Lytle and Adachi, and (5) claims 1-4, 12, 13, 15, and 21 are allegedly obvious over Thalmann and Williams. Continue reading
Conduct of the Proceeding IPR2014-01002
In its Decision, the Board declined to enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner under § 42.73(b)(2) and also determined that, under the circumstances presented, termination of the proceeding without a final written decision (as requested by Patent Owner) was not appropriate.