In its Decision, the Board denied institution of the Petition as to all challenged claims of the ’279 patent. Consequently, a Covered Business Method patent trial was not instituted. The Petition had sought covered business method patent review of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–21, 24, 27–35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 47–49, 54, 55, 62, and 63 of the ’279 patent. After Patent Owner had shown that it had filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 19, 24, 27, 33, 34, 53, 58, 61, 67, and 68 in the USPTO, the Board indicated that no covered business method patent review would be instituted for these disclaimed claims. Thus, the focus of the Board’s Decision was on whether to instituted covered business method patent review of remaining claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–18, 20, 21, 28–32, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 47–49, 54, 55, 62, and 63. Continue reading
Category Archives: Standing
Denying Request for Rehearing CBM2014-00157
In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing of the Decision to institute covered business method patent review of claims 1-21, 24-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 36-39 of the ’409 patent, and denied Patent Owner’s request for an expanded panel. Continue reading
Expunging Preliminary Response IPR2015-00009
In its Order, the Board ordered that the Preliminary Response filed by Fluidigm will be expunged unless within five business days of the Board’s Order, a paper is filed “that shows cause why Fluidigm should be entitled to file a preliminary response to the Petitions.” Continue reading
Denying Institution IPR2014-01242
In its Decision, the Board found that Petitioner Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. (“JHTNA”) lacked standing because it was time-barred under 35 USC 315(b). In addition, because Petitioner Johnston Health Tech Co. Ltd. (“JHT”) is a privy of JHTNA, JHT was also found to lack standing. Therefore, the Petition was denied. Continue reading
Denying Institution CBM2014-00166
In its Decision, the Board found that Petitioner failed to satisfy the standing requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) to a file a Petition for covered business method patent review because the Petition did not provide sufficient proof that Petitioner was “charged with infringement of the patent.” Continue reading
Final Written Decision CBM2013-00033
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 7-16 and 23-27 of the ‘679 patent are unpatentable but failed to demonstrate that claims 1-6 and 17-22 are unpatentable. The ‘679 patent “relates to a system and method for peer-to-peer advertising between mobile communication devices.” Continue reading
Decision Denying Request for Rehearing CBM2014-00119
In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the Board’s decision to institute trial in a covered business method patent review of U.S. Patent No. 8,370,211 B2. Continue reading
Denying Additional Discovery IPR2014-01257, 1260
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion for additional discovery. Patent Owner had wanted additional discovery in order to ascertain further details as to any relationship between Petitioner and a third party referred to as “Royal Cup.” Continue reading
Decision Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review CBM2014-00101
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of covered business method review because Petitioner did not show that claims 1-19 of the ’894 Patent do not recite solving a technical problem using a technical solution. Because the covered business method patent review was denied based on a threshold question, the Board provided no position with regard to the merits of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of claims 1-19. The ’894 Patent relates to facilitating real-time two-way transactions, as opposed to deferred transactions, e.g., e-mail. Continue reading