Institution Decisions

In Ricoh Americas Corporation v. MPHJ Technology Investments, Inc., IPR2014-00539, Paper 7 (August 25, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, 20-23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 39-42, 44, 46, and 47 of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,410 (all of the challenged claims).

Dispositions
In Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Pragmatus Mobile LLC, IPR2014-00582, Paper 11 (August 25, 2014), the Board terminated the proceedings on the joint motion of the parties.

In Netgear, Inc. v. Freeny, IPR2014-00704, Paper 8 (August 25, 2014), the Board terminated the proceedings on the joint motion of the parties.

In Apple Inc. v. WhitServe LLC, IPR2014-00268, Paper 27 (August 25, 2014), the Board terminated the proceedings on the joint motion of the parties. 08/25/2014

In Toyota Motor Corporation v. Hagenbuch, IPR2013-00483, Paper 35 (August 25, 2014), the Board rejected the patent owner’s request that lead counsel did not have to attend the hearing.  The Board was not persuaded that the cost was a sufficient reason to allow lead counsel to skip the hearing, particularly where back-up counsel was not a licensed practitioner.

In Schott Gemtron Corporation v. SSW Holdings Company, Inc., IPR2014-00367, Paper  21 (August 21, 2014), the patent owner pointed out that rather than uploading the expert declaration, the petitioner uploaded a different document, and pointed out that the petition should not have been accorded a filing date until the expert declaration was properly uploaded.  Even though the declaration was served on the patent owner, and the petitioner uploaded the declaration on the next day that the Office was open, the Board agreed, and reset the filing date.  The Board did indicate that the petitioner could move that the petition be accorded an earlier filing date.

In a case like this, where the filing date of the petition is crticial to avoid a time bar, double checking that the proper exhibits are uploaded can be critical.

Institution Decisions

In Finisar Corporation v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd., IPR2014-00461, Paper 9 (August 21, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,395 (all of the challenged claims).

In Finisar Corporation v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd., IPR2014-00462, Paper 9 (August 21, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,089,683 (all of the challenged claims).

In Finisar Corporation v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd., IPR2014-00465, Paper 9 (August 21, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 29, 60, 66, 71–73, 76, and 91 of U.S. Patent No. 8,335,033, but not as to challenged claims 2, 4, 5, 17–19, 22–28, 30, 31, 56, 58, 61–65, 67, 68, 70, 74, 75, 78, 89, and 90 (about 23% of the challenged claims).

In Finisar Corporation v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd., IPR2014-00460, Paper 9 (August 21, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1,2, 4-9, and 11–14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,710, but not as to claims 3 and 10.

In Skyhawke Technologies, LLC v. L&H Concepts LLC, IPR2014-00438, Paper 7, (August 21, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 13, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,566, all of the challenged claims, but not on all of the challenged grounds.

In Skyhawke Technologies, LLC v. L&H Concepts LLC, IPR2014-00437, Paper 8, (August 21, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 8–11, 14, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,566, all of the challenged claims, but not on all of the challenged grounds.

Institution Decisions

In GSI Technology, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, IPR2014-00419, Paper 9 (August 11, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1–3, 9–11, 17–20, 26–28, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,967,861.

In GSI Technology, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, IPR2014-00426, Paper 7 (August 11, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,445,645.

In GSI Technology, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, IPR2014-00427, Paper 7 (August 11, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,385,128.

In A.C. Dispensing Equipment Inc. v. Prince Castle LLC, IPR2014-00511, Paper 10 (August 11, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,534,497.

Dispositions

In Boston Scientific Corp. v. Vascular Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00759, Paper 10, IPR2014-00760, IPR2014-00761, Paper 10, IPR2014-00762, IPR2014-00763,  Paper 13 (August 11, 2014) the Board terminated five inter partes reviews on the joint motion of the parties.

In ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Pragmatus Mobile, LLC, IPR2014-00670, Paper 12 (August 11, 2014) the Board terminated five inter partes reviews on the joint motion of the parties.

Decisions on Rehearing

In TRW Automotive U.S.LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc., IPR2014-00266, Paper 21 (August 11, 2104), the Board granted the Petitioner’s motion for rehearing of the determination not to institute inter partes review on one of four challenged grounds.

New Filings

Gordon * Howard Associates, Inc., filed IPR2014-01213 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,484,035, assigned to Lunareye, Inc.

EMC Corporation filed UPR2014-01216 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,825,891 assigned to STEC IP, LLC.

EMC Corporation filed UPR2014-01217 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,925,481 assigned to Reefedge, Inc.

EMC Corporation filed UPR2014-01218 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,254,621assigned to STEC IP, LLC.

Institution Decisions

In BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, IPR2014-00325, Paper 17 (July 29, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832

Terminations

In RF Micro Devices, Incorporated v. Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation, IPR2014-00546 (July 29, 2014), the Board terminated the inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties

\