Motion to Amend GRANTED IPR2015-00208

LinkedInTwitterFacebookGoogle+Share

Takeaway: In a motion to amend, there is no requirement for a patent owner to analyze expressly every individual reference cited during prosecution of the challenged patent. A patent owner can group references together according to their particular teachings without having to present on each and every reference giving rise to that same teaching.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that the challenged claims (1-5) of the ’897 Patent are unpatentable, and granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend to add substitute claims 6-10. The ’897 Patent is drawn to a method of handling a wheel of a motor vehicle while the vehicle is elevated on a hydraulic lift or hoist for repair by a service technician.

Continue reading

Patent Owner’s Discovery Request to Cross Examine Witness Granted as Routine Discovery CBM2015-00179

Takeaway: Cross examination of affidavit testimony obtained during a prior proceeding that is relied upon in support of a petition is authorized under the routine discovery rule and does not require a motion for additional discovery showing good cause. Moreover, it is the petitioner’s burden to produce such a witness for cross examination.

In its Order, the Board authorized Patent Owner to cross examine Petitioner’s witness. Patent Owner had contacted the Board seeking a discovery ruling to allow cross examination of a witness Petitioner had relied upon in showing that a certain reference qualifies as prior art. Petitioner argued that cross examination is not permitted per the routine discovery rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1) and further argued that the witness was unavailable. The Board authorized cross examination and determined that Petitioner—rather than Patent Owner—is responsible for producing the witness for cross examination. Continue reading

Institution of CBM Review Denied CBM2015-00184

Takeaway: When showing that a patent does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious over the prior art, the petitioner must analyze the question by looking at how each claim of the patent combines the individual components into an ordered whole.

In its Decision, the Board found that it was not more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims (1-49) of the ’002 Patent is unpatentable, and denied institution of covered business method patent review. The ’002 Patent describes a system and method for using a mobile interface agent (“MIA”) to access information of a user.

Continue reading

Final Written Decision Finding Insufficient Articulated Reasoning Presented in Support of Obviousness Grounds IPR2015-00155

Takeaway: An obviousness conclusion cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. The ’243 patent “relates to “telephone communication systems in penal institutions or similar facilities.” Continue reading

Final Written Decision Revising Previous “Means” Construction In View of Williamson v. Citrix IPR2015-00298

Takeaway: The Board will likely find unpersuasive arguments related to prior art where a petitioner fails to identify corresponding structure in the specification for a means-plus-function limitation.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable but failed to show that claims 9-12, 14, and 16 were unpatentable. “The ’849 patent relates to providing instruction on playing a musical instrument, such as a guitar,” and in particular, “an instruction system that displays a graphical representation of a guitar and demonstrates to a user when and how to play a note or chord.” Continue reading

Collateral Estoppel Based on Ex Parte Reexam Found Not Applicable in Final Written Decision IPR2015-00169

Takeaway: Application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion)—where a judgment on the merits in a first proceeding precludes relitigation in a second proceeding of issues actually litigated and determined in the first proceeding—requires a final decision in the first proceeding and is discretionary.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not proven that the challenged claims of the ‘167 patent are unpatentable as obvious. The ‘167 patent discloses “edible water-soluble delivery systems in the form of a film composition including a water-soluble polymer, an active component selected from cosmetic agents, pharmaceutical agents, vitamins, bioactive agents and combinations thereof, and at least one anti-tacking agent.” Continue reading

Extension of Time to Submit Supplemental Evidence Denied CBM2015-00179

Takeaway: If prior art status of a reference is contested in prior proceedings, a petitioner should address any such deficiencies in the first instance, and not rely on being granted permission to file supplemental evidence.

In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file supplemental evidence and request to file a motion to submit supplemental information, and granted Patent Owner’s request to file a motion to stay related reexamination. Continue reading

Denying Motion to Submit Declaration as Supplemental Information Where Declaration Constituted Supplemental Evidence IPR2015-01078

Takeaway: Supplemental information may only be filed if a motion to submit supplemental information is granted. By contrast, supplemental evidence is served in response to an objection to the admissibility of evidence, and may also be filed with an opposition to a motion to exclude the objected to evidence.

In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information and ordered that the supplemental declaration be expunged from the record. Patent Owner sought to submit as supplemental evidence a supplemental declaration from Richard Mander, Ph.D., which the Board had previously authorized Patent Owner to file. Continue reading

Denial of Petitioner’s Rehearing Request for Raising New Unpatentability Arguments PGR2015-00022

Takeaway: An attempt to supplement unpatentability reasoning not set forth in the petition is not a basis for granting a request for rehearing.

In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision on Institution of post-grant review. In the Board’s Institution Decision, the Board granted the Petition and initiated post-grant review as to certain claims of the ‘292 patent, but denied the Petition as to other claims. Continue reading