In its Decision, the Board granted institution as to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 15, and 16 of the ’593 Patent, but declined to institute review of claims 3 and 8 of the ’593 Patent. The ’593 Patent discloses a vehicle stereo control interface system for use with factory installed local stereo controls and an aftermarket in-dash stereo. Continue reading
Category Archives: Uncategorized
USPTO Issues New Rules For PTAB Proceedings
The USPTO has now issued a new set of rules for practice before the PTAB. The new rules, which constitute a finalized version of an earlier proposal made available for public commentary in August of 2016, amend the existing trial practice rules in place for IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings. Under the new rules:
- a patent owner will be allowed to submit testimonial evidence, such as expert declarations, in its patent owner preliminary response, although “if a genuine issue of material fact is created by testimonial evidence, the issue will be resolved in favor of petitioner solely for institution purposes, so that petitioner will have an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant during the trial;”
- certain papers filed in a proceeding will require a Rule 11-type certification, and attorneys may be sanctioned for violations such as failing to conducti an adequate investigation prior to filing the petition;
- the Board will continue to use the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim construction standard, except that in cases where the claims of the challenged patent will expire before the final written decision, the Board will use the Phillips-type district court standard; and
- major briefings, including the petition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, and petitioner’s reply brief, will now be subject to word count limits rather than the current page limits.
The USPTO declined to institute a pilot program that had been proposed under which a single judge, rather than the three-judge panel, would decide whether to institute certain proceedings.
According to the USPTO, it “will amend its Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to reflect these rule changes and developments in practice concerning how the USPTO handles motions to amend, additional discovery, real party-in-interest and privy issues, and confidential information.”
The new rules are set to take effect in 30 days, i.e., on May 2, 2016. The corresponding Federal Register Notice can be found at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/04/01/2016-07381/amendments-to-the-rules-of-practice-for-trials-before-the-patent-trial-and-appeal-board.
Order Authorizing Filing Of Transcript Of Markman Hearing IPR2015-00664
In its Order, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file an exhibit containing the transcript of the Markman hearing that took place in a related litigation. However, the Board did not authorize Patent Owner to file any evidence other than this transcript. Petitioner was authorized to submit any objections that it had to Patent Owner’s filing.
Decision Denying Institution Where Petitioner Does Not Provide Adequate Structure Corresponding To Alleged Means-Plus-Function Limitations IPR2015-01667
In its Decision, the Board denied the Petition as to all challenged claims. Thus, the requested inter partes review was not instituted.
Inherency Not Established in Final Written Decision Finding Claims Not Unpatentable IPR2014-01248
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged claims 1-22 of the ‘639 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The ‘639 patent “is directed to lightweight fabrics that provide protection from heat, flame, and electrical arc.” Continue reading
Granting Institution Despite Request for Consideration of Previously-Submitted Prior Art IPR2015-01557
In its Decision, the Board determined Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claims 10 and 14 of the ’188 patent are unpatentable. The ’188 patent “is directed to a memory card that includes both a device connector, conforming to a device connection standard, and a host connector, conforming to a host connection standard.” Continue reading
Decision Granting Motion To Apply For A Subpoena CBM2015-00061
In its Decision, the Board authorized Petitioner to file a Motion to Apply for a Subpoena under 35 U.S.C. § 24 to Compel the Testimony of Mr. Jonathan C. Wheeler pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a). Patent Owner had not opposed this Motion; instead, it had requested various limitations on the scope and logistics of the sought-after testimony.
Denying Institution Based on Same or Substantially the Same Prior Art Previously Presented to the Board IPR2015-00723
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of the challenged claims 2-4 of the ’991 patent. The ’991 patent generally relates to devices and methods for repairing the juncture between a main pipeline and a lateral pipeline in an underground sewer pipe. Continue reading
Proposed Changes to PTAB Trial Rules
On August 19, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced Proposed Rules Changes that have been published in the Federal Register. The Proposed Rules discussed practical changes to PTAB trials that were made in response to comments received during the Office’s nationwide listening tour in April and May of 2014. Continue reading
Denying Institution of Challenged Claims IPR2015-00323
In its Decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9, 10, and 13-17 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,889,332 are unpatentable, and denied its petition for inter partes review. The ’332 patent relates to power management of computer systems. The Board began with claim construction, determining that, for the purposes of its decision, it did not need to provide an express construction for any of the claim terms. The Board then turned to the proposed grounds of unpatentability.