In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 8 of the ’835 patent unpatentable. The standard of review for rehearing requests set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) places the burden on the challenging party to show that a decision should be modified. The Request must “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Continue reading
In its Decision, the Board granted Petitioner’s request for rehearing of the denial of institution as to claims 1-20 of the ’563 Patent, and instituted inter partes review.
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
In its Decision, the Court denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing of the Board’s decision denying inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’685 Patent.
Takeaway: A priority benefit to an earlier filed application requires both that there be continuity to the earlier application and that the salient description is present in each application establishing the continuity.
In its Decision, the Board granted Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review. The Board had denied institution, holding that Petitioner had failed to establish a prior art date for the Kikinis CIP reference. In granting rehearing, the Board identified an alternative route to establish an earlier prior art date for the Kikinis CIP, and indicated that another Institution Decision addressing the merits of the Petition would be forthcoming. Continue reading
In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing of the Final Written Decision regarding claims 1 and 15 of the ’607 Patent. The Board noted that a Final Written Decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Final Written Decision should be modified. The Request must identify all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked.
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s denial of institution of inter partes review. Petitioner’s requested partial reconsideration on the following grounds: Continue reading
In its Decision, the Board granted-in-part Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing on the Board’s Decision to deny Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery. In that Decision, the Board found that “Patent Owner has not met its burden in showing additional discovery is in the interests of justice as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2).” Patent Owner argued in its Request for Rehearing that “[s]ince the Motion was directed to improperly omitted [real parties-in-interest] in particular, the evidence presented in the Motion only needed to show beyond speculation that something useful would be uncovered as to the [real party-in-interest] issues. The Motion certainly met this standard.”
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Decision not to institute trial on both grounds: (1) claims 1, 2, and 8 as anticipated by Nieboer; and (2) claims 1-13 as unpatentable as obvious over Nieboer and Kolter. When rehearing a decision on institution, an abuse of discretion standard is applied, and an abuse of discretion is “indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Continue reading