Takeaway: Petitioner persuaded a majority of the panel that although its arguments in the Petition were drawn to a claim construction that was not adopted, the Board had overlooked certain arguments that demonstrated a reasonable likelihood claims were anticipated even under the Board’s construction of the claims. Continue reading
Monthly Archives: January 2016
All Challenged Claims Found Unpatentable Over Unpersuasive Secondary Considerations IPR2014-01161
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3 of the ’920 patent are unpatentable. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding Some Claims Not Unpatentable For Use of Non-Analogous Art IPR2014-01079
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-16, 20, and 21 of the ’949 patent are unpatentable as anticipated, but had not demonstrated that claims 2, 4, 10, 11 ,17, and 25 are unpatentable. The ’949 patent relates to “a variable movement headrest arrangement for providing support to the head of an occupant of a vehicle upon vehicle impact.” Continue reading
Final Written Decision Upholding Challenged Claims IPR2014-01093
In its Final Written Decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims (1-22) of the ’794 are unpatentable. The ’794 Patent provides “a number of methods directed to the multiplexing amplification and/or genotyping reactions of target sequences to create amplicons that can subsequently be detected on an array.” The earliest possible effective filing date of the ’794 Patent is September 2000.
Request to File Supplemental Declarations Denied IPR2015-00636; IPR2015-00637
In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental declarations. Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion to submit two supplemental declarations, a Kretschman declaration and a Ludwick declaration.
Decision Granting Motion To Submit Additional Information IPR2015-01078, -01080
In its Decision, the Board granted Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information in each of IPR2015-01078 and IPR2015-01080. The first of these involved an inter partes review of the ‘694 patent, and the second of these involved an inter partes review of the ‘954 patent.
Decision Granting Institution Of Covered Business Method Review CBM2015-00147
In its Decision, the Board instituted a covered business method review of each of challenged claims 1-23 (i.e., all claims) of the ‘854 patent. In doing so, the Board indicated that it had been persuaded that it was more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on multiple obviousness grounds.
Final Written Decision Finding Challenged Claims Unpatentable IPR2014-01244
In its Final Written Decision, ordered that each of challenged claims 1-15 of the ‘171 patent are unpatentable. The Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, as well.
Final Written Decision Finding Challenged Claims Unpatentable and Denying Motion to Amend IPR2014-01154
Takeaway: A patent owner’s duty of candor and good faith to the Board may require that the patent owner demonstrate, in a motion to amend, making a good faith attempt to determine whether any prior art known to it discloses the additional limitations introduced in the proposed amended claims, even where a large number of prior art references have been cited in related applications. Continue reading