In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims (1-8 and 10-12) are unpatentable, denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, and denied Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Continue reading
Category Archives: Written Description
Denying Motion for Leave to File Additional Motion to Amend IPR2013-00333
In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to supplement its Motion to Amend to expressly claim priority to an earlier-filed patent application and to identify support for the subject matter of the substitute claims in the application. Continue reading
Denying Institution of Covered Business Methods Review CBM2014-00067
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of covered business method patent review. Specifically, Petitioner challenged claims 1-28 of the ’022 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. The ’022 Patent relates to a method of ordering a translation of an electronic document, such as a web page or email, using a “one-click” or “single-click” translation component. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00175
Finding All Challenged Claims Unpatentable and Denying Motion to Amend
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that all of the challenged claims (1, 4, 13-15, 17, and 19) of the ’674 Patent are unpatentable, and denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. The ’673 Patent is directed to systems and methods for generating infrared light with wavelength in the mid-infrared (IR) range. The Board noted that no oral hearing was held, because neither party desired it. Continue reading
Final Written Decision IPR2013-00155
Finding All Challeneged Claims Unpatentable and Denying Motion to Amend
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that all of the challenged claims (1-6) of the ’489 Patent are unpatentable, and denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. The ’489 Patent is directed to “a communication system for a water softener system that includes a controller configured for communicating with the water softener assembly and a remote display configured for sending and receiving at least one signal to and from the controller to remote location.” The Board noted that no oral hearing was held, because neither party requested it. Continue reading
Denying Motion to Reconsider Institution CBM2014-00020
In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing on the Board’s Decision to Institute. Specifically, with respect to the Board’s Decision regarding Institution, Petitioner contended that the Board failed to appreciate that the ’137 patent fails to provide a written description for the term “within and between” as it appears in claims 1-67. The Board denied the request during a conference call, stating that the term “within and between” appears verbatim in the Summary of Invention portion of the specification. Petitioner argued that the verbatim description in the specification fails to convey possession of the full scope of the claimed invention. However, the Board disagreed, finding that the language of the specification describes data transfer within a subsystem. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding All Claims Unpatentable and Denying Motion to Amend IPR2013-00102
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that claims 1-5 and 7-14 of the ’828 Patent are unpatentable. The Board also denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. Further, the Board denied Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude and dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. The ’828 Patent describes methods of enhancing the photostability of silver in antimicrobial materials for use in wound dressing and medical devices. Continue reading
Denying Request for Rehearing of Decision on Institution CBM2014-00005
In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the decision to institute covered business method patent review of claims 1-6 of the ’205 Patent. The Board stated that the moving party has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the moving party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in the papers. Continue reading
Denying Request to File Motion to Strike and Expunging Exhibit IPR2013-00194
In its Order, the Board expunged a chart that was submitted in support of Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Amend and denied Petitioner’s request to file a motion to strike said exhibit. Relevant Exhibit 2075 is a 91 page chart that lists support in the provisional application for “amended claim 4” in Patent Owner’s Corrected Motion to Amend. The Board previously determined that the document in Relevant Exhibit 2075, which was originally filed as Exhibit C to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, was not proper in this proceeding and ordered Patent Owner to file a corrected motion to amend, which it did without Exhibit C. In response to Petitioner’s Opposition, which stated that Patent Owner had not established support for the substitute claim, Patent Owner submitted Relevant Exhibit 2075 on the basis that Petitioner was now demanding the information set forth in the chart. Continue reading
Final Written Decision (Motion to Amend) – IPR2013-00093
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that the challenged claims of the ‘880 patent were unpatentable as anticipated and obvious in view of the prior art. Also, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. Continue reading