In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing regarding the Board’s Final Written Decision, finding that Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Board misapprehended or overlooked any matters in rendering the final decision. In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not established the unpatentability of challenged claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, 18-28, 30-32, 34-36, 38-44, 46-48, and 50-52 of the ‘189 patent. Petitioner sought rehearing and challenged the Board’s findings that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior art discloses two claim limitations: “ratio of the change in length” and the “modulus of elasticity” of the outer primary coating. Continue reading
Granting Motion for Additional Briefing on Alice v. CLS Bank CBM2013-00042
In its Order, the Board granted Patent Owner’s request for additional briefing regarding the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Ptt. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (June 19, 2014). Patent Owner requested five additional pages to respond to Petitioner’s Reply Brief in order to address any issues arising from Alice. Petitioner opposed the request contending that the briefing was unnecessary as it did not change any pre-existing law. The Board found that based on the facts of this proceeding, a sur-reply of five pages limited to discussing the impact of Alice was warranted, and also authorized Petitioner to file a sur-sur-reply of two pages limited to the scope of Patent Owner’s sur-reply. Continue reading
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00302
In its Decision Denying Institution, the Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims and denied institution of inter partes review. The ’913 Patent relates to radiant energy systems that have great applicability in military optical system applications for detecting the presence of an enemy employing surveillance equipment and for neutralizing this surveillance capability. Continue reading
Denying Motion for Additional Discovery CBM2013-00042
In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for additional discovery. Patent Owner requested additional discovery to obtain an installable and working version of the software product that is described in the printed publication software manuals asserted by Petitioner to anticipate claims at issue in the CBM proceeding. Continue reading
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00333
E.I. DuPont DeNemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1-11 of the ’143 Patent because Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The ’143 Patent describes plant breeding methods for “sampling transgenic seeds to test for the presence or absence of a transgene or the zygosity of a transgene (number of transgenes) in a population of seeds in a high throughput manner.” Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00138
Holding that Petitioner failed to prove that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner did not prove claims 1–18, 20–38, and 40–56 of the ’736 Patent were unpatentable. The ’736 Patent relates to distributing and enforcing usage rights for digital works. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00252
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that claims 1-10 of the ’291 Patent are unpatentable and that claims 11-16 of the ’291 Patent are not unpatentable. The ’291 Patent relates to decompressing compressed video data. The Board instituted review on the ground challenging claims 1-16 as obvious over Haskell and Rossmere. Continue reading
Decision Granting Petitioner’s Motion For Joinder IPR2014-00556
In its Decision, the Board granted Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-00003. The Board granted this Motion despite Patent Owner’s Opposition to the Motion, and with the knowledge that the Petitioner in IPR2014-00003 was an entity separate from the Petitioner in the instant proceeding. If not for the Board granting Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, the instant proceeding would have been time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Continue reading
Decision Denying Institution IPR2014-00334
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5-16 and 18-22 of the ‘439 patent. According to the Board, Petitioner had not established that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on proving that these claims were unpatentable. Continue reading
Denying Rehearing and Expanded Panel Requests IPR2014-00236, 239, 240
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and its Request for Expanded Panel. The Board had denied institution of inter partes review in each of the three Petitions as not having been timely filed within the one-year period set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner argued in its Rehearing Request that the Board’s Decision was based on a clearly erroneous interpretation of the statute. Petitioner also requested an expanded panel because of “an alleged appearance of impropriety regarding the judge who authored the Decision Denying Institution” and the importance of the time-bar issue. Continue reading