New Filings
CB Distributors, Inc., filed IPR2014-01529 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,689,805 assigned to Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
Dispositions
In Sony Corporation v. Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00219, Paper 60 (September 22, 2014), the Board held that claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 (all of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,284 were unpatentable.
Institution Decisions
In Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2014-00644, Paper 12 (September 19, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 11–20, 23, 27, 50, 51, 54, 60, and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,746,078, but not as to challenged claims 54-59.
Dispositions
In Research In Motion Corporation v. NXP B.V., IPR2013-00232, Paper 25 (September 19, 2014), the Board issued its Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,639,697 (all of the challenged claims) have been shown to be unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.
In Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., IPR2-14-00344, Paper 27, IPR2014-00492, Paper 18, (September 18, 2014), the Board admonished the parties for their conduct of the proceeding:
We also take this opportunity to observe a general lack of courtesy and decorum from counsel for both parties. See Ex. 2004, 99:20–102:10; 164:14–165:22. The parties are strongly cautioned to follow all rules applicable to this proceeding, including that “[e]very party must act with courtesy and decorum, . . . including in interactions with other parties.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(c).
The trigger no doubt was the parties’ conduct at depositions,. The Board specifically instructed the parties:
in any future deposition in this proceeding, the parties shall refrain from interrupting each other and the witness, and shall not make speaking objections. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14, 2012). In particular, counsel must not make objections or statements that suggest an answer to a witness and objections should be limited to a single word or term. Id. (emphasis added). Objections to form are properly stated as “Objection, form.”
Dispositions
In SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam, IPR2013-00194, Paper 60 (September 18, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–6, 10–12, 14–17, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 8,037,148 (all of the challenged claims) are unpatentable.
In SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam, IPR2013-00195, Paper 67 (September 18, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–8 and 10–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,108,492 (all of the challenged claims) are unpatentable.
In Hewlett-Packard Company v. MCM Portfolio LLC, IPR2013-00217, Paper 32 (September 12, 2014), after the issuance of its Final Written Decision, the Board lifted the stay it had imposed on a co-pending reissue, even though it was before the time for any appeal has expired and any appeal has terminated.
Institution Decisions
In Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00736, Paper 10 (September 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,676,446.
In Histologics, LLC v. CDx Diagnostics, Inc., IPR2014-00779, Paper 6 (September 12, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,258,044 as barred under 35 USC 315(b).
Dispositions
In Apex Medical Corp. v. ResMed Limited, IPR2014-00551, Paper 11 (September 12, 2014), the Board terminated the inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties.
In Dynamic Drinkware LLC, v, National Graphics, Inc., IPR2013-00131, Paper 42 (September 12, 2014), the Board found that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,635,196 (the only claims at issue) are unpatentable.
In Sealed Air Corporation v. Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc., IPR2013-00554, IPR2013-00555, IPR2013-00556, IPR2013-00557, and IPR2013-00558, (September 12, 2014) the Board terminated the inter partes reviews on the joint motion of the parties.
Pantech Wireless, Inc. v. Feher, IPR2014-00769, Paper 14 (September 12, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties.
In Google Inc.v. Inventor Holdings, LLC, CBM2014-00002, Paper 38 (September 12, 2014), the Board entered judgment cancelling claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 23, 24, 32, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 5,844,270, on the patent owner’s motion.
In Google Inc.v. Inventor Holdings, LLC, CBM2014-00003, Paper 34 (September 12, 2014), the Board entered judgment cancelling claims 1 -4, 9-11, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 65 of U.S. Patent No. 5,844,272, on the patent owner’s motion.
In Mohawk Resources Ltd. v. Vehicle Service Group LLC, IPR2014-00464, Paper 15 (September 12, 2014), the Board terminated the inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties.
In Apex Medical Corp. v. ResMed Limited, IPR2013-00512, Paper 27 IPR2013-00512, Paper 29,IPR2013-00514 Paper 27IPR2013-00515, Paper 27, IPR2013-00516, Paper 29,(September 12, 2014) the Board terminated the Inter Partes reviews on the joint motion of the parties.
Rehearing Decisions
In Finisar Corp. v. Thomas Swan & Co., Ltd., IPR2014-00460, Paper 12 (September 12, 2014), the Board denied rehearing of the decision not to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,710, finding that the patent owner successfully antedated the prior art.
Institution Decisions
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., IPR2014-00488, Paper 17 (September 11, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,769,605 (“all of the challenged claims).
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., IPR2014-00691, Paper 17 (September 11, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims claims 1–29 of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,249 (“all of the challenged claims).
In Safeway, Inc. v. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC, IPR2014-00685, Paper 11 (September 11, 2014), the Board denied institution of inter partes reviews of claims 1 and 19–25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,054,830 (“all of the challenged claims”).
Dispositions
In PCT International, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation, IPR2013-00229, Paper 30 (September 11, 2014), the Board found claims 1–13 and 16–18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,544,094 (all of the challenged claims) unpatentable.
Decision on Rehearing
In Schrader International, Inc. v. Wasica Gmbh, IPR2014-00476, Paper 14 (September 11, 2014), the Board denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of the refusal to institute inter partes review of claim 11, the Board having instituted inter partes review of claims 1-10 and 12-21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524.
Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00500, Paper 12 (September 10, 2014) instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13–15, 17, 21, 24–26, 28, 30, 33–35, 37, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 5,790,793.
New Filings
Microsoft Corporation filed IPR2014-01457 challenging claims 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 46, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86 of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 assigned to Biscotti, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation filed IPR2014-01458 challenging claims 6, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, and 53 of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 assigned to Biscotti, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation filed IPR2014-01459 challenging claims 1, 4, 5, and 69-74 of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 assigned to Biscotti, Inc.
Institution Decisions
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411 , Paper 8 (September 5, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-58 (all of the claims) of U.S. Patent No. 8,426,813.
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00608, Paper 8 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1-58 (all of the claims) of U.S. Patent No. 8,426,813.
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00434 , Paper 8 (September 5, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-7 and 9-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,193,496.
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00608, Paper 8 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1-7 and 9-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,193,496.
In Dorman Products, Inc. v. Paccar Inc., IPR2014-00542, Paper 10 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of US Patent No. D525,731.
In ARM, Inc. v. Vantage Point Technology, Inc., IPR2014-00467, Paper 10 (September 10, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,463,750.
Rehearing Decisions
In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00558, Paper 16 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision to not institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,188,180 because of the one year bar of 35 USC 315(b).
In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00401, Paper 14 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision to not institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,188,180 because of the one year bar of 35 USC 315(b).
In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00405, Paper 14 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision to not institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,188,180 because of the one year bar of 35 USC 315(b).