In Veeam Software Corporation v. Symantec Corporation, IPR2013-00141. Paper 35 (April 7, 2014), the petitioner complained that the patent owner’s repies to petioner;s opposition to the motion to amend because they exceeded the scope of the opposition.  The Board reminded the parties:

The scope of a reply is limited. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in a corresponding opposition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A reply is not an opportunity to raise new issues or provide additional evidence that could reasonably have been provided in the motion. A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned.

The board expunged the replies, but did give the patent owner five days to try again.

In Sony Corporation v. Yissium Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00218, Paper 35 (April 7, 2014) and IPR2013-00219, Paper 41 (April 7, 2014), the patent owner sought an early ruling whether the petitioner;s response and expert declaration should be excluded for improperly raising new issues.  The Board did not want to engage on the matter, however, noting that a ruling on the evidentiary objection at this stage is premature.  Whether a reply contains arguments or evidence that is outside the scope of a proper reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), is left to theultimate determination of the Board,, which it will address in final written decision.

New Filings

Digital Empire Limited filed IPR2014-00584 challenging claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,503, assigned to Hilltop Technology LLC.

IBM filed IPR2014-000587 challenging claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 6,826,694, assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC.

New Filings

Microsoft Corporation filed IPR2014-00574 and IRP2014-00575 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,151,604 assigned to LJM Software, Inc., and IPR2014-00576 and IPR2014-00577 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,163,775 assigned to LJM Software, Inc.

Terminations of Proceedings

in Cannon, Inc. v. Yama Capital, LLC, IPR2014-00015, Paper 17 (April 4, 2014), the Board terminated the proceedings prior to a decision to institute, because of a settlement between the parties.

New Filings

Nelson Products, Inc, filed IPR2014-00572 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,297,662, and IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,297,662, and IPR2014-00573 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,375,543.

Termination Decisions

In GTech Corporation v. SHFL Entertainment, Inc., CBM2014-00048, Paper 20 and CBM2104-00049, Paper 23 (April 3, 2014), the Board terminated the Proceedings in view of the parties settlement, noting that a trial had not even been instituted.

In Motorola Mobility LLC. v Intellectual Venture I LLC, CBM2014-00084, Paper 6 (April 3, 2014), the Board had given Motorola Mobility five days to submit a corrected petition, removing the argument from its claim charts, but Motorola Mobility missed the date.  The Board granted Motorola additional time, noting that since the correction simply involved removing matter, it would not prejudice the patent owner.

Trials Terminated

The Board issued a final judgment terminating the proceedings in InvenSense, Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., IPR2013-00241 (March 31, 2014), in veiw of the Settlement reached by the parties.  The Board noted that the Petitioner had not yet responded to the motion to amend, and there were no other proceedings involving the patent.

Decisions Denying Extra Pages

Motion to Amend

Riverbed Technology Inc. v Silver Peak Systems, Inc., IPR2013-00402, Paper 24 (March 27, 2014) [5 extra pages in the Motion to Amend]

Riverbed Technology Inc. v Silver Peak Systems, Inc., IPR2013-00403, Paper 24 (March 27, 2014) [5 extra pages in the Motion to Amend]

Petitioner Reply

Oracle Corporation v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP, IPR2013-00312, Paper 42 (March 27, 2014) [3 extra pages in the reply]

Final Written Decisions

The Board issued a final written decision in Kyocera Inc. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004 and Case IPR2013-00257, Paper 53 (March 27, 2014) finding claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, and 75 (all of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,926 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The Board issued a final writen decision in Microstrategy, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., IPR2013-00034, Paper 42 (March 27, 2014), finding claims 2, 5-11, 13-17, 26, 28-33, 35-37, 39, and 40 unpatenable, but finding claims12, 27, 34, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 7,970,674 patentable.  Petitioner had originally sought review of all 40 claims, but trial was only instituted as to 2, 5-17, and 26-40.