In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of any of the challenged claims (1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-22) of the ’872 Patent. The ’872 Patent relates generally to a method for selecting and allocating a seat or group of seats to a ticketed event, such as a sporting or concert event.
In its Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion for additional discovery directed to evidence regarding whether certain additional parties should be listed as real parties-in-interest.
Takeaway: If parties intend to redact the entirety of an exhibit, the Board expects a specific discussion of each subpart within the exhibit. A general discussion of the exhibit as a whole is insufficient to establish that the entirety of the exhibit contains confidential information that should be sealed.
In its Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability with respect to at least one IPR of claims 1-10 of the ’135 patent. Continue reading
Takeaway: Merely being an alleged executor or board member of Petitioner does not establish sufficiently that the individuals identified, in their individual capacities, exercise control or have an opportunity to exercise control of the proceeding, as opposed to in their capacities as executives or board members of Petitioner.
In its Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of claims 1-7 of the ’433 patent. Continue reading
Takeaway: To anticipate a later-claimed species, a pattern of preferences or other related teaching or suggestion must lead to a genus small enough that a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the claimed species.
In its Decision, the Board declined to institute inter partes review of claims 1-13, 20-27, and 34-61 of the ’208 patent because Petitioner had not established that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Continue reading
In its Decision, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-20 of the ’271 patent.
According to the Board, the ’271 patent relates to a bottle cap (i.e., crown cap) that is made with thinner and harder steel compared to conventional crown caps. Petitioner asserted the following challenges to the ’271 patent: (1) claims 1-4, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 as obvious over Frishman and Industrial Heating; (2) claims 11 and 16 as obvious over Frishman, Industrial Heating, and Wagner; (3) claims 1-4 and 10-20 as obvious over Industrial Heating and Wagner; (4) claims 5-9 as obvious over Frishman, Industrial Heating, Mumford, and U.S. Steel; and (5) claims 5-9 as obvious over Industrial Heating, Wagner, Mumford, and U.S. Steel. Petitioner asserted that “average hardness” is hardness plus variations, and that “hardness” refers to Rockwell Hardness. Patent Owner did not dispute these assertions. Continue reading
Takeaway: The Board prefers a “list approach” in lieu of granting a Motion to Strike material that allegedly exceeds the scope of Patent Owner’s Response because if the Board incorrectly determines that portions of Petitioner’s Reply are beyond the scope of Patent Owner’s Response, those portions would remain in the record for consideration on appeal.
In its Order, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file a list of items that it believes exceeded the scope of Patent Owner’s Response. Petitioner was authorized to submit a response thereto. Continue reading
In its Order, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file an exhibit containing the transcript of the Markman hearing that took place in a related litigation. However, the Board did not authorize Patent Owner to file any evidence other than this transcript. Petitioner was authorized to submit any objections that it had to Patent Owner’s filing.