Takeaway: Presentation of an obviousness case requires a reasoned explanation as to why all of the claimed limitations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Continue reading
Category Archives: Expert Testimony
Denying Institution in View of Piecemeal Claim Limitation Presentation IPR2015-01548
Final Written Decision finding Asserted Reference to be Enabling IPR2014-01162
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-46 are unpatentable. “The ’467 patent is directed to high definition lenticular lenses.” Continue reading
Institution Denial Finding Insufficient Evidence of Anticipation and Obviousness IPR2015-01495
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ‘612 patent. The ‘612 patent “discloses parenteral administration of iron carbohydrate complexes ‘at relatively high single unit dosages for the therapeutic treatment of a variety of iron-associated diseases, disorders, or conditions’ . . . , e.g., iron deficiency anemia, anemia of chronic disease, and dysfunctional iron metabolism.” 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
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.
Denying Request for Rehearing Decision on Institution IPR2015-00943
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing of its denial of institution of inter partes review of the ’521 patent. Petitioner had argued that the Decision failed to apply broadest reasonable construction and misapprehended or overlooked several matters in the Petition. The Board was not persuaded by any of the arguments. Continue reading
Expert Testimony Missing Underlying Facts or Data Receives Little Or No Weight IPR2015-01633
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4-15, 23-26, 28-31, 35-41, 50, 57, 62, 64-67, and 70-72 of the ’827 patent.
Petitioner challenged claims 1, 2, 4-15, 23-26, 28-31, 35-41, 50, 57, 62, 64-67, and 70-72 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Gogek. Petitioner alleged that Gogek inherently teaches the subject matter of independent claim 1 based on experiments undertaken by Dr. Leed and Dr. Vickers, under the supervision of Dr. Hireskorn. Continue reading
Authorized To Cross-Examine After Declaration Was Filed Regardless Of Service Date IPR2015-00014
In its Order, the Board mooted Patent Owner’s Request for Authorization to depose Petitioner’s declarant and ordered Petitioner to expunge the declarant’s testimony from the proceedings. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding Challenged Claim Not Unpatentable IPR2014-01002
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 of the ’509 patent is unpatentable. The ’509 patent “is directed to aluminum-lithium based alloy products displaying a combination of high strength and high fracture toughness.” Inter partes review of claim 10 had been instituted on three grounds of unpatentability based on obviousness. Continue reading