In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision on Institution of post-grant review. In the Board’s Institution Decision, the Board granted the Petition and initiated post-grant review as to certain claims of the ‘292 patent, but denied the Petition as to other claims. Continue reading
Category Archives: Decision on Institution
Denying Institution because Petitioner Found to Lack Standing CBM2015-00180
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of any covered business method patent review because Petitioner lacked standing. Petitioner Phoenix Licensing was the sole remaining petitioner after several parties had been terminated from the proceeding. Because Phoenix Licensing itself did not have standing, the Board denied institution. Continue reading
Institution of Inter Partes Review Denied IPR2015-01932
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of any of the challenged claims (1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-22) of the ’872 Patent. The ’872 Patent relates generally to a method for selecting and allocating a seat or group of seats to a ticketed event, such as a sporting or concert event.
No Patentable Weight To Preamble Amendments In This Patent IPR2015-01855, 1877
In its Decision, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, and 12 of the ’196 patent. Continue reading
Patent Not Entitled to Filing Date of Provisional Because Claims Not Supported By The Provisional IPR2015-01835
Takeaway: A reasonable expectation of success is not absolute predictability of success.
In its Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability with respect to at least one IPR of claims 1-10 of the ’135 patent. Continue reading
A Showing That Third Party Is An Executor Or Board Member Is Insufficient For Real-Parties-In-Interest IPR2015-01769
In its Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of claims 1-7 of the ’433 patent. Continue reading
Evidence Lacking To Show Genus Anticipated Later-claimed Species IPR2015-01723
In its Decision, the Board declined to institute inter partes review of claims 1-13, 20-27, and 34-61 of the ’208 patent because Petitioner had not established that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Continue reading
Document Is Prior Art Via Public Dissemination Or By Being Made Sufficiently Available IPR2015-01651
In its Decision, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-20 of the ’271 patent.
According to the Board, the ’271 patent relates to a bottle cap (i.e., crown cap) that is made with thinner and harder steel compared to conventional crown caps. Petitioner asserted the following challenges to the ’271 patent: (1) claims 1-4, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 as obvious over Frishman and Industrial Heating; (2) claims 11 and 16 as obvious over Frishman, Industrial Heating, and Wagner; (3) claims 1-4 and 10-20 as obvious over Industrial Heating and Wagner; (4) claims 5-9 as obvious over Frishman, Industrial Heating, Mumford, and U.S. Steel; and (5) claims 5-9 as obvious over Industrial Heating, Wagner, Mumford, and U.S. Steel. Petitioner asserted that “average hardness” is hardness plus variations, and that “hardness” refers to Rockwell Hardness. Patent Owner did not dispute these assertions. Continue reading
Decision Denying Institution Of Inter Partes Review IPR2015-01784
In its Decision, the Board denied the Petition for inter partes review. In the course of doing so, the Board found that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed in proving any of the challenged claims of the ‘443 patent to have been obvious.
Institution Granted Where SEC Filing Found to be Printed Publication IPR2015-01853
In its Institution Decision, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-41 of the ’826 patent. The ’826 patent “relates to methods of using a sustained release oral dosage form of an aminopyridine composition to treat a neurological disorder, such as multiple sclerosis (‘MS’), by maximizing the therapeutic effect, while minimizing adverse side effects.” Continue reading