In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 of the ‘836 patent are unpatentable. In particular, the Board found that claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Dezonno; that claims 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious in view of Dezonno; and that claim 22 and 29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious in view of Dezonno taken in combination with the Mosaic Handbook. Continue reading
Monthly Archives: October 2014
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00312
Denying Leave to File Supplemental Information IPR2014-01113
In its Order, the Board denied Petitioner’s request to file supplemental information. Following the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Petitioner requested to file deposition excerpts, from related district court litigation, of one of Patent Owner’s named inventors in the ’028 patent. Petitioner argued that the testimony included meanings of certain claim terms that were inconsistent with the meanings taken by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response.
Denying Motion to Correct Clerical Mistake IPR2014-00833
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s unopposed Motion to Correct a Clerical Mistake in the Petition without prejudice. The Petition referred to Exhibit 1007 as Publication No. 2002/0000916 A1, but the filed Exhibit 1007 was a copy of the issued patent corresponding to the referenced publication. Continue reading
Denying Motion for Request to Stay the Proceeding CBM2014-00176
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion for a stay of the deadline to file a Preliminary Response. Patent Owner’s bases for requesting such authorization related both to another proceeding (CBM2014-00008) involving the same ’807 patent and the same parties, and recent Supreme Court opinions in the cases of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) and Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014). Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00266
In its Final Written Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend to the extent it requested cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 19 of the ’346 Patent, denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend to the extent it requested entry of substitute claims 20-26, and dismissed as moot both parties’ Motions to Exclude Evidence. The ’346 Patent relates to DNA sequencing using nucleotides that are labeled and blocked. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2014-00276
all claims remain patentable
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-18 of the ’430 patent are unpatentable. Also, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. Continue reading
Denying Rehearing of Desicion not to Institute IPR2014-00514
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision denying Institution of inter partes review of claims of the ’580 patent. At issue was the Board’s conclusion in its Decision that certain materials alleged by Petitioner to be prior art were not sufficiently made available to the public. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00290
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that claims 1, 4-16, 18, and 20-22 of the ’536 are unpatenable, Petitioner had not shown that claims 2, 3, 17, or 19 are unpatentable, and denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and Motion to Exclude. The ’536 Patent relates to injection molding machines that inject, under pressure, injectable molding material into a mold cavity. Continue reading
Order re Oral Hearing IPR2014-00041, 43, 51, 54, 55
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
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00337
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘913 patent are unpatentable. Also, the Board dismissed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Continue reading