In its Order, the Board expunged a declaration that was submitted with Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. Petitioner sought authorization from the Board to file a motion to expunge Exhibit 2089, a declaration by Dr. Robert Short in support of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. Rather than authorizing Petitioner’s request, the Board entered the instant Order expunging Exhibit 2089. Continue reading
Monthly Archives: August 2015
Final Written Decision Finding All Challenged Claims Unpatentable IPR2014-00313
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all challenged claims (1-9) of the ’666 Patent are unpatentable. The ’666 Patent relates to a slide-out or retractable room for mobile living quarters. Continue reading
Differing Claim Construction For The Same Patent Claims In Two Separate IPRs IPR2015-00023
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) of claim 40 of the ’188 patent. Continue reading
Denying Covered Business Method Patent Review Because Petitioner Did Not Have Standing CBM2015-00068
In its Decision, the Board denied institution because it determined that Petitioner did not have standing to file a covered business method patent review of the ’317 Patent. The Board explained that under § 18(a)(1)(B) of the AIA, “[a] person may not file a petition for a transitional proceeding with respect to a covered business method patent unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.” Thus, a Petitioner may acquire standing if (1) Petitioner has been sued for, or charged with infringement of the patent for which it seeks review; (2) if a party sued for, or charged with infringement, is Acxiom’s real party-in-interest; or (3) if the party sued for, or charged with, infringement is a privy of Acxiom. Continue reading
Granting Request for Rehearing Based on Board Overlooking Finding of No Unpatentability of Broader Claim IPR2014-00220
Takeaway: A request for rehearing was granted where the Board mistakenly found a claim unpatentable when it included all of the limitations of a broader claim that had been found not to be unpatentable.
In its Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the Final Written Decision on the grounds that “the Board overlooked that claim 9, being narrower than claim 7, should not have been held unpatentable for the same reasons that claim 7 was not held unpatentable.” Patent Owner explained that claim 9 includes all of the language of claim 7 and adds the phrase “at least as a function of vehicle speed.” Patent Owner argued that because claim 9 includes all of the limitations of claim 7 and the Board found claim 7 to not be unpatentable, then claim 9 should be found to not be unpatentable for the same reasons as for claim 7. The Board agreed and overturned its decision on the patentability of claim 9. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding Claims Not Unpatentable IPR2014-00511
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner had not met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-12 of the ’497 patent are unpatentable. The ’497 patent relates to dispensing liquid “from a bulk container by empirically determining the liquid surface height and opening a dispensing valve for a time period that is calculated using a value of liquid specified to be dispensed and the empirically-determined liquid surface height.” Continue reading
Denying Rehearing Where Public Accessibility of a Reference was not Established IPR2015-00369
In its Decision, the Board held that Petitioner had not demonstrated that the Board had abused its discretion by not instituting inter partes review of claims 1-4 of the ‘290 patent in view of Barber. Consequently, Petitioner’s request for rehearing was denied.
Denying Authorization to Seek a Subpoena to Compel Testimony IPR2014-01372; IPR2014-01374
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to seek a subpoena and its request for an extension of the deadline to submit supplemental evidence. Patent Owner requested a conference call to request authorization to seek a subpoena from a district court and for an extension of the deadline to submit supplemental evidence. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Denying Motion to Exclude Allegedly Improperly Submitted Exhibit CBM2014-00056
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 42 and 43 of the ’137 patent are unpatentable. Continue reading
Claims Unpatentable for Obviousness in Final Written Decision IPR2014-00402
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-15 of the ’012 patent are unpatentable. The ’012 patent relates to methods for making renewable jet fuel blendstock that meets ASTM blendstock requirements. Specifically, “[t]he methods comprise fermenting a biomass-derived feedstock, dehydrating the resulting alcohols to produce olefins, oligomerizing the olefins to form unsaturated oligomers, and hydrogenating the unsaturated oligomers to form the renewable jet fuel.” Trial had been instituted on two obviousness grounds. Continue reading