In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 31, 41, and 45 of the ’775 Patent are unpatentable; and had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 32-40 and 42-44 are unpatentable. The Board was unable to reach a determination on the alleged grounds of unpatentability over prior art for claims 1-15, and terminated the proceeding with respect to those claims. The ’775 Patent relates to “a system and method for data storage, manipulation and retrieval in a self-referential logical table of a database.” Continue reading
Monthly Archives: April 2015
Final Written Decision IPR2014-00148
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims, claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-20, and 22-24, of the ’178 Patent are unpatentable. The ’178 Patent relates to a massager with an inductively chargeable power source. Continue reading
Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-01417
In its Decision on Institution, the Board denied the Petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1-9 and 18-37 of the ’475 patent. According to the Board, the Petition failed to identify all real parties-in-interest as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a). Continue reading
Final Written Decision CBM2014-00030
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioners had demonstrated by a preponderance that claims 1-23 of the ’382 patent are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This led the Board to conclude that Petitioner had shown these claims to be unpatentable. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00582
Finding All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all challenged claims of the ’251 Patent, claims 1, 6, and 8-13, were unpatentable. The ’251 Patent relates to a synthetic biomaterial compound based on stabilized calcium phosphates and adapted for supporting bone cell activity. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00540
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that both challenged claims of the ’314 Patent, claims 1 and 2, were unpatentable. The ’314 Patent discusses a way to assist deaf, hard of hearing, or otherwise hearing impaired individuals to use the telephone. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2014-00086
Upholding All Challenged Claims
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the instituted claims, 2-12, 14, and 16, of the ’536 patent are unpatentable. The ’536 patent generally relates to “developing intelligence in a computer or digital network by creating and manipulating information containers with dynamic interactive registers in a computer network.” Continue reading
Granting Extension of Time to Submit Supplemental Evidence CBM2014-00091-93
In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request for an extension of the deadline for serving supplemental evidence.
According to Petitioner, it was unable to serve a certified copy of “the application file of the Teramura reference” to Patent Owner until after the deadline for supplemental evidence “due to difficulties with the Canadian Patent Office, including the unavailability of a three-day turnaround for certified copies and closings of government offices in Ottawa around October 22nd, 2014.” Continue reading
Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-01505
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,462,713.
The Board began its analysis by considering Patent Owner’s argument that inter partes review is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted based on a petition “filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2014-00123
In its Final Written Decision, the Board concluded that claims 1-7 and 10-12 of the ’867 patent are unpatentable. At the same time, the Board found that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 of the ’867 patent are unpatentable. Continue reading