Takeaway: The Board acts like a judge in a bench trial in district court. Therefore, it will not exclude evidence that goes to the weight of the testimony, such as alleged bias, but will consider it in assessing the evidence presented.
In its Decision, the Board denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence. Petitioner moved to exclude as unfairly prejudicial Exhibit 2002, which is a declaration proffered by Patent Owner in support of its arguments that Petitioner did not establish the unpatentability of claims 1-28. Alternatively, Petitioner moved to exclude certain paragraphs of Exhibit 2002 for various other reasons, such as lack of foundation, being related to inadmissible legal issues, improper attorney argument, and lack of relevance. Continue reading
Takeaway: Because the threshold for instituting trial is different than the threshold for proving unpatentability of a claim in trial, a petitioner may be allowed submit evidence supporting the prior art status of a challenged reference in its reply.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘944 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ‘944 patent “relates to backing up and restoring file systems” by “copying information describing changes in the file system since a previous point in time.” Continue reading
Takeaway: A poster that is displayed may be considered a printed publication where the intended audience of the poster session necessarily includes interested persons of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the challenged claims.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had proven that claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious, but had not proven the unpatentability of claims 17 and 18. The Board also granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and denied its Motion to Exclude Evidence. The ’550 patent “discloses using a ‘Mycobacterium smegmatis porin (Msp)’ to detect analytes in liquid media.” Continue reading
Takeaway: A motion to exclude must state why the evidence is inadmissible, identify the corresponding objection in the record, and explain the objection.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 3-11 of the ’181 patent are unpatentable. The Board had instituted review on the following grounds: (1) claims 1, 3–7, and 9–11 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Di Bernardo, (2) claims 1, 3–7, and 9–11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Di Bernardo and Kawabe, and (3) claim 8 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Di Bernardo and Lachinski. The Board maintained its construction for the term “geographic location of interest” as provided in its Decision on Institution. In addition, the Board stated that no patentable weight would be given to the term “server farm,” and that even if it were to accord patentable weight to the term, the broadest reasonable interpretation would be “a group of networked servers.” As for the means plus function interpretation of claims 7-10, the Board declined to adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation that the corresponding structure is only the algorithm provided in the specification. Continue reading