In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 13, 33, 39, 45, 52, 59, 66, 73, 83, 89, 95-108, 117, and 118 of the ’167 patent because Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims. Continue reading
Monthly Archives: May 2015
Publication Date on Non-patent Literature Found to Meet Exception to Hearsay Rule in Final Written Decision for IPR2014-00527
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had met its burden of showing that each of challenged claims 1-22 of the ’674 patent claims is unpatentable. The Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude, as well. The ’674 patent relates to the implementation of “security protocols on transmissions over wired and wireless portions of the network.” Continue reading
Granting Motion for Additional Discovery IPR2014-01005
In its Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery pertaining to its assertions of secondary considerations of nonobviousness, particularly regarding copying. The Board also granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal the Motion for Additional Discovery and a Joint Motion to Enter Protective Order. Continue reading
Denying Motion for Live Testimony at Oral Argument IPR2014-00599
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request to present live testimony from its expert witness at the hearing in this proceeding. Continue reading
Granting in Part Institution CBM2015-00010
In its Decision, the Board instituted a covered business method patent (CBM) review proceeding of claims 1-60 of U.S. Patent No. 8,402,281 B2. The ’281 patent relates to protecting data against unauthorized access. Continue reading
Denying Motion to Compel IPR2014-00571
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request to retake the deposition of Petitioner’s witness. During the deposition of Petitioner’s witness a dispute arose concerning questioning the witness with respect to an exhibit, which was a marked-up copy of a manual that is not asserted as prior art in this proceeding. Patent Owner sought to rely on the exhibit to question the witness’s credibility by ascertaining whether the questioning regarding the exhibit would lead to inconsistencies with respect to the witness’s testimony. However, Patent Owner could not provide the Board with a sufficient basis for questioning the witness’s credibility in the first place or for questioning the witness at all regarding the exhibit. The Board found that this questioning was akin to a “fishing expedition” and in conflict with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), which requires the Board to resolve the proceeding in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. Therefore, the Board determined that there was not sufficient reason to take the deposition of the witness again. Continue reading
Denying Request to File Motion to Compel Deposition CBM2014-00176
In its Order, the Board denied Petitioner’s request to file a motion to compel the deposition testimony of a named inventor of the ’807 Patent and denied Patent Owner’s request to file a motion for sanctions. Continue reading
Denying institution For Not Qualifying for Covered Business Method Review CBM2015-00019
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of the Petition as to all challenged claims of the ’279 patent. Consequently, a Covered Business Method patent trial was not instituted. The Petition had sought covered business method patent review of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–21, 24, 27–35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 47–49, 54, 55, 62, and 63 of the ’279 patent. After Patent Owner had shown that it had filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 19, 24, 27, 33, 34, 53, 58, 61, 67, and 68 in the USPTO, the Board indicated that no covered business method patent review would be instituted for these disclaimed claims. Thus, the focus of the Board’s Decision was on whether to instituted covered business method patent review of remaining claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–18, 20, 21, 28–32, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 47–49, 54, 55, 62, and 63. Continue reading
Decision Denying Institution IPR2015-00413
Apple Inc. v. E-Watch, Inc.
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of the ’871 Patent because Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims, claims 1-3, 5-7, 12, and 14. The ’871 Patent generally relates to “image capture and transmission systems and is specifically directed to an image capture, compression, and transmission system for use in connection with land line and wireless telephone systems.” Continue reading
Denying Institution IPR2015-00039, 42, 44, 45, 47
In its Decision, the Board determined that the Petitions did not identify all real parties in interest, and that Petitioner had not established good cause for late correction of the Petitions or that such correction would be in the interests of justice). The Board, therefore, denied the Petitions. Continue reading