Takeaway: That a patent owner may have availed itself of the commercial benefits of its patent grant in negotiating with customers and potential customers does not, without more, justify sealing portions of the record from public disclosure.
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s post-hearing motion to expunge sealed versions of certain exhibits. Specifically, Patent Owner sought to seal deposition transcripts of two Saint-Gobain employees and named inventors of the ‘640 patent that was challenged in the instant IPR proceeding. Continue reading
Takeaway: Petitioner’s alleged threat to file IPRs against Patent Owner, unless Patent Owner pays Petitioner, is sufficient to grant authorization for Patent Owner to file a motion for sanctions against Petitioner.
Based on specific representations made during a telephone conference, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file a motion for sanctions (hereinafter, “Motion”) against Petitioner that includes dismissal of the petitions (IPR2015-01092, IPR2015-1096, IPR2015-01102, IPR2015-01103). Continue reading
Takeaway: A motion to seal must present sufficient facts and meaningful analysis to establish entitlement to the requested relief, and merely because information relates to an activity of a business does not make that information confidential business information.
In its Decision, the Board granted-in-part and denied-in-part the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal. The Motion sought to seal “portions of Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition (Paper 34), and either portions or the entirety of 12 exhibits referred to in that Motion.” The Motion also requested entry of a Joint Stipulated Protective Order. The Board granted the Motion with respect to entry of the Protective Order and with respect to email addresses that are contained in Exhibit 2100. The Motion was denied as to all other aspects. Continue reading
Takeaway: To establish a nexus between commercial success of a computer-related product and a challenged patent claim, evidence beyond publicly-available, generalized hearsay statements is likely to be required, and could even include evidence such as source code.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all challenged claims (claims 18-20, 45, 48, 49, 51, and 54) of the ‘494 patent are unpatentable. The ‘494 patent “relates to computerized research on databases” and “discloses that it improves search methods by indexing data using proximity indexing techniques.” Continue reading
Takeaway: The Board may postpone the date of the oral hearing to decide motions to seal to determine which documents are part of the public record.
In its Order, the Board postponed the date for the oral hearing in the proceedings and authorized Petitioner’s request to file a Sur-reply in response to Patent Owner’s Reply in support of Patent Owner’s Motion relating to real parties-in-interest. Continue reading