In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request for a stay of the co-pending ex parte reexamination and did not address Petitioner’s alternative request to consolidate the reexamination. The Board may stay, transfer, consolidate, or terminate another proceeding or matter involving the same patent before the Office. However, the Board “ordinarily will not stay a reexamination because, in the absence of good cause, reexaminations are conducted with special dispatch.” Continue reading
Category Archives: Claim Construction
Order Denying Motion to Stay Petitions IPR2013-00194, IPR2013-00195, CBM2013-00013
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request to stay two related inter partes review proceedings and a related covered business method review in light of a district court’s finding that all of the challenged patents were invalid as being indefinite. In light of its ruling regarding the requested stay, the Board granted the parties’ previous request for oral hearing. Continue reading
Final Written Decision (Motion to Amend) IPR2013-00071
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioners had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 patent are unpatentable. Continue reading
Holding Terminal Disclaimer in Abeyance Pending Outcome of the Proceeding IPR2013-00242
In its Order, the Board ordered that the terminal disclaimer filed by Patent Owner as to the patent at issue be held in abeyance until the instant proceeding terminates or a final written decision is issued, and that the challenged claims will continue to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00082
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all the challenged claims of the ‘791 patent are unpatentable. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Upholding Patentability of Challenged Claims IPR2013-00063
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-5 of the ’058 Patent are unpatentable. The Board had instituted trial on those claims on a single ground: obviousness over the combination of Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow. The Board relied on its analysis in its Final Decision of IPR2013-00062 (“062 Decision”) in this Decision. The Board also dismissed Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude and Motion to Submit Supplemental Information. Continue reading
Final Written Decision and Denying Motion to Amend Without Prejudice IPR2013-00048
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that claims 5, 13, 17, 19, 22, 37, 45, and 49 of the ’189 Patent are unpatentable, the remaining claims of the ’189 Patent (1-4, 6-12, 14-16, 18-28, 30-32, 34-36, 38-44, 46-48, and 50-52) are not unpatentable, the Motion to Amend Claims is denied without prejudice, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is dismissed, and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is dismissed-in-part and denied-in-part. Continue reading
Denying Motion for Rehearing of Decision on Institution IPR2013-00572
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of inter partes review of claims 23, 24, 26, and 33 of the ’492 Patent. The Board stated that the standard of review of a decision on institution is abuse of discretion, which may be determined by analyzing whether a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. The Board also stated that the request must specifically identify all matters that the movant believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. Continue reading
Final Written Decision and Denying Motion to Amend IPR2013-00050
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all the challenged claims are unpatentable, denied Patent Owner’s Corrected Motion to Amend Claims, and denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00041
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that claims 23 and 25-29 of U.S. Patent No. 5,746,775 (the ’775 Patent) were unpatentable, dismissed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude and denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. The ’775 Patent relates to methods of exposing collagenous biomaterial to an alcohol, in order to inhibit in vivo calcification. Continue reading