In its Order, the Board addressed matters that had been discussed during a consolidated conference call with the parties. Initially, the Board ordered the parties to jointly file a public version of Exhibit 3001, which was filed under seal. The Board then addressed Petitioner’s request for permission to seek additional discovery with respect to several items. Continue reading
Institution Granted-In-Part Where Patent Not Entitled to Earlier Filing Date IPR2016-00061
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. The ’593 Patent discloses a vehicle stereo control interface system for use with factory installed local stereo controls and an aftermarket in-dash stereo.
Institution Granted Where Claims Not Entitled to Earlier Priority IPR2016-00061
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
Denying Institution where Petition Found to be Based on Mere Probability or Possibility in Prior Art Reference IPR2015-01543
In its Decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to its challenge of claims 11-19 and 39-47 of the ’581 patent. The ’581 patent relates to “a system and method for collecting information about a device or user of the device.” Petitioner asserted three grounds of unpatentability based primarily on the Seiffert and Fawcett references, which the Board treated as seven separate grounds. Continue reading
Motion For Sanctions Granted-in-part for Violation of Unentered Protective Order IPR2015-01750
In its Order, the Board granted-in-part Petitioner’s motion for sanctions against Patent Owner. The Board noted that Petitioner has the burden to persuade the Board that sanctions are warranted. In general, the Board reviews: (i) whether a party has performed conduct that warrants sanctions; (ii) whether the moving party has suffered harm from that conduct; and (iii) whether the sanctions requested are proportionate to the harm suffered by the moving party. Continue reading
Motion for Routine Discovery Granted as to Deposition Transcripts Referred to by Declarants IPR2015-00698, IPR2015-00700
In its Order, the Board determined that Patent Owner could use depositions during the cross-examination of Petitioner’s declarants. Petitioner’s declarations refer to seven deposition transcripts. During the call, Petitioner offered to allow Patent Owner to use the entirety of the depositions during cross-examinations, but not the underlying exhibits because Petitioner stated they were not reviewed by the declarants. The Board agreed that the depositions, but not the underlying exhibits, are routine discovery under § 42.51(b)(1)(i). The Board noted that Petitioner opened the door to use of the depositions when it filed declarations relying upon their content. The Board further noted that Patent Owner may question the declarants on what material they reviewed in preparing the declarations.
Under Armour, Inc. v. Adidas AG, IPR2015-00698; IPR2015-00700
Paper 37: Order on Routine Discovery
Dated: March 18, 2016
Patents: 8,092,345 B2; 8,579,767 B2
Before/Written by: Jennifer S. Bisk
Final Written Decision with Dissent Differing with Majority’s Technical Analysis IPR2014-01374
In its Final Written Decision, the Board held that Petitioner had not established by a preponderance of the evidence unpatentability of the challenged claims. The Board also dismissed the parties’ Motions to Exclude Evidence. Judge Clements dissented from the opinion of the Board. Continue reading
Denying Motion to Exclude Evidence Going to the Weight of Testimony IPR2015-00093
In its Decision, the Board denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence. Petitioner moved to exclude as unfairly prejudicial Exhibit 2002, which is a declaration proffered by Patent Owner in support of its arguments that Petitioner did not establish the unpatentability of claims 1-28. Alternatively, Petitioner moved to exclude certain paragraphs of Exhibit 2002 for various other reasons, such as lack of foundation, being related to inadmissible legal issues, improper attorney argument, and lack of relevance. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable IPR2015-00093
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown that claims 1-6 and 9-28 of the ’220 Patent are unpatentable, but that Petitioner did not demonstrate that claims 7 and 8 are unpatentable. The ’220 Patent discloses a system for detecting an event at a premises and supplying information regarding the event to a website that various authorized users can access. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding No Inconsistency between Expert Testimony and Earlier Paper by Same Expert IPR2015-00009
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’503 patent are unpatentable. The ’503 patent “is directed to a microfluidic device for analyzing and/or sorting biological materials. Continue reading