In its Decision, the Board denied the Petition, and found that Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of claims 1-3, 6-15, and 18-22 of the ‘299 patent. Thus, no trial was instituted. Continue reading
Monthly Archives: January 2015
Decision Denying Institution IPR2014-01222
Takeaway: A petition must take into account all words in a claim.
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review, finding that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 1-4 and 7-11 of the ‘336 patent. The ‘336 patent “relates to a method for enabling the converting, navigating, and displaying of video content from a video content provider on an open online network to a discrete digital TV service provider network.” Continue reading
Denying Request for Rehearing of Final Written Decision IPR2013-00322
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s determination in the previously-rendered Final Written Decision. The Board indicated that it had considered the Request for Rehearing but nonetheless elected to decline to modify the Decision. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00431
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-16 of the ’186 Patent are unpatentable. The Board also dismissed as moot both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s Motions to Exclude Evidence and considered Patent Owner’s observations to the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Stone, who was cross-examined after Petitioner filed its Reply. Continue reading
Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-01208
In its Decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner had persuasively demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21-26, 28, 32-35, 37, 40, and 44-46 of the ’522 patent are unpatentable. Thus, the Board instituted trial with respect to these claims. The Board was not similarly persuaded as to challenged claims 4, 16, 17, and 20, and therefore did not institute trial with respect to challenged claims 4, 16, 17, and 20. The ’522 patent relates “to vision or imaging systems for vehicles . . . that are operable to determine if a vehicle or object of interest is adjacent to, forward of, or rearward of the subject vehicle to assist the driver in changing lanes or parking the vehicle.” Continue reading
Denying Institution IPR2014-01279
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review, finding that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 1-15 of the ‘799 patent. The ‘799 patent “relates to antiparasitic pharmaceutical compositions said to be useful for treating flea infestation on pets, particularly dogs and cats.” Continue reading
Granting Motion to Correct Filing Date IPR2015-00239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 247
In its Decision, the Board granted Petitioner’s motion to correct the filing date and accorded the Petition a filing date of November 6, 2014. The Board explained that the “purpose of a petition is to give adequate notice to a patent owner of the basis for relief by laying out the grounds of unpatentability proposed by a petitioner, as well as any supporting evidence.” Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00424
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘000 patent are unpatentable. Continue reading
Denying Authorization for Stay IPR2015-00290
In its Order, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion for stay of the proceeding. According to the Board, the reasons put forth by Petitioner for granting a stay did not sufficiently support Petitioner’s authorization request. Continue reading
Denying Institution IPR2014-01092
In its Decision, the Board denied the Petition as to all challenged claims of the ’974 patent. Consequently, no trial was instituted.
The Petitioner had challenged claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, and 17 of the ’974 patent, which relates to light emitting panel assemblies. Using the broadest reasonable construction standard applicable for an unexpired patent, the Board found that all claim terms other than “deformities” were entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning. As for the term “deformities” appearing in all of the challenged claims, the Board adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction (which was previously adopted and agreed to by the district court) as meaning “any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Continue reading