In its Order, the Board summarized the initial conference call and ordered that Due Date 1 be moved and that each party file a paper setting forth its position regarding the expiration date of the ’879 patent and the proper claim construction standard. Continue reading
Final Written Decision and Denying Motion to Amend IPR2013-00110
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that all of the challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13, and 14) of the ’259 Patent are unpatentable, denied Patent Owner’s Corrected Motion to Amend, granted in part Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, and dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. The ’259 Patent is directed to a combination seed capsule, comprising at least one viable seed, a coating of composition comprising a soil conditioning material mounted proximate and disposed outwardly of the outer surface of the seed, and optionally including one or more of inorganic chemical fertilizers, growth enhancer, binder, and/or anti-fungal agent. Continue reading
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00282
In its Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’896 Patent, and denied institution. The ’896 Patent relates to a modular transport system for coverings for architectural openings, such as venetian blinds, pleated shades, and other horizontal or vertical blinds and shades. Specifically, the goal of the invention is to provide a system wherein certain mechanisms are housed in independent, self-contained modules. Continue reading
Denying Motion to Limit Deposition Time Limit CBM2014-00028, 29, 30, 31, 33
In its Order, the Board summarized the initial conference call held with the parties and denied Petitioner’s request to limit the amount of time for deposing the experts.
No changes were made to the schedule, no protective order had been entered, no requests for additional discovery were expected, and the parties had nothing to report regarding settlement. Patent Owner indicated that it would file a Motion to Amend in CBM2014-00031 to cancel all the challenged claims, which Petitioner did not oppose. Patent Owner also indicated that it planned to file a contingent Motion to Amend in CBM2014-00033 (and possibly others) and that it would request a conference call with the Board before filing. Continue reading
Final Written Decision and Denying Motion to Amend IPR2013-00116
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that claims 94-97, 99, 110, and 111 of the ’915 Patent are unpatentable, granted Patent Owner’s unopposed Motion to Amend canceling claim 37 and claims 40, 47, 66, 67, 73, 76, 78-81, 83, 84, 86-89, 91, and 92 to the extent they depend from claim 37, dismissed Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence as moot, and denied Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence. Continue reading
Final Written Decision (Motion to Amend) IPR2013-00175
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sanders and that claim 14 is unpatentable as obvious over Sanders – the only grounds upon which trial was instituted. The Board also denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. Continue reading
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00436
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review on any of the challenged claims (1-22) of the ’469 Patent. The Board then denied as moot Petitioner’s motion to join its challenge with a related ongoing inter partes review of the ’469 Patent, IPR2013-00451 (’451 proceeding). The ’469 Patent relates to a networked system for remotely monitoring and communicating with other individuals, including outpatients of medical facilities, through the use of script programs. Continue reading
Denying Leave to File Motion to Strike CBM2013-00033, 34, 35, 44, 46
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike and allowed Patent Owner to file the certificate of corrections issued for the challenged patents. Patent Owner sought to strike arguments in Petitioner’s reply that Patent Owner contended were outside the proper scope of a reply. Although the Board did not authorize the filing of a motion to strike, the Board nevertheless ordered that Petitioner’s arguments were indeed outside the proper scope of its reply. Continue reading
Order Regarding Compliance with Discovery Obligations IRP2014-00566
In its Order, the Board directed the parties to discuss Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner had not met its discovery obligation to turn over relevant information that is inconsistent with its positions on issues under review. The Board also ordered Petitioner to make any additional disclosures necessary to meet its discovery obligations under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1), and required Petitioner to file a statement affirming its compliance. Continue reading
Authorizing Motion for Additional Discovery IPR2014-0097; CBM2013-00049
In its Order, the Board addressed the initial conference call, which was held for the IPR proceedings, IPR2014-00097 and IPR2014-00098. Also addressed during the call were the related CBM proceedings, CBM2013-00049, CBM2013-00050, and CBM2013-00051.
The Board first addressed the proposed scheduling changes in both the IPR and CBM proceedings. The Board granted the parties’ joint request to extend due dates in the IPR proceedings to account for holiday schedules. The Board also granted Petitioner’s request to extend the schedule in the CBM proceedings “for a limited period of time” to address the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, __ U.S. __, No. 13-298, slip op. (U.S. June 19, 2014). Continue reading