Category Archives: Covered Business Methods

October 15, 2014

Posted on by

Institution Decisions

In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2014-00610, Paper 9 (October 15, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151.

In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2014-00615, Paper 9, Case IPR2014-00612, Patent No. 9, IPR2014-00613, Paper 9, and IPR2014-00614, Paper 9, (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6, 14–17, 19–23, 26–41, 43–47, and 50–60 of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 (all of the challenged claims) and consolidated those proceedings.

In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2014-00615, Paper 9, Case IPR2014-00616, Patent No. 9, IPR2014-00618, (October 15, 2014) the Board denied inter partes review of  1, 2, 6, 14–17, 19–23, 26–41, 43–47, and 50– 60 of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211 (43 claims) in  IPR2014-00616. but instituted inter partes review in IPR2014-00615 and IPR2014-00618, and consolidated those proceedings.

In Ford Motor Company v. Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC., IPR2014-00594, Paper 26 (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims of claims 1–15, 21–28, and 41–44of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 (all 27 of the challenged claims).

In Ford Motor Company v. Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC., IPR2014-00600, Paper 26 (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims of claims 1–15, 21, 22, 24–28, and 41–44 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 (all 36 of the challenged claims).

In BMW North America, LLC v. Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC., IPR2014-00601, Paper 26 (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims of claims 1–15, 21, 22, 24–28, and 41–44 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 (all 36 of the challenged claims).

In BMW North America, LLC v. Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC., IPR2014-00602, Paper 26 (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims of claims 1–15, 21, 22, 24–28, and 41–44 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 (all 36 of the challenged claims).

In BMW North America, LLC v. Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC., IPR2014-00603, Paper 30 (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–15, 21–28, and 41–44 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 (all 27 of the challenged claims).

In The Gillette Company v. Zond LLC,  IPR2014-00604, Paper 9 (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 30–37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775.

In Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited v. Zond LLC, IPR2014-00846, Paper 12 (October 15, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 14–18 and 25–32 (all the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716.

In Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited v. Zond LLC, IPR2014-00849, Paper 11 (October 15, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 19–24 (all the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716.

In Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Zond LLC,  IPR2014-00807, Paper 10 (October 15, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 14–18 and 25–32 (all the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716.

In Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Zond LLC,  IPR2014-00808, Paper 9 (October 15, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 19–24 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716.

In IGB Automotive Ltd. v. Gentherm GmbH, IPR2014-00667, Paper 7 (October 15, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 (all of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,637,573.

Joinder

In Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited v. Zond LLC, IPR2014-00846, Paper 12 (October 15, 2014) the Board granted petitioner’s motion to join the proceeding with IPR2014-00808.

In Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited v. Zond LLC, IPR2014-00849, Paper 12 (October 15, 2014), the Board granted petitioner’s motion to join the proceeding with IPR2014-00807.

Rehearing

Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd. v. adidas AG, DER2014-00005, Paper 15, DER2014-00006, Paper 21 (October 15, 2014), the Board denied rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of a derivation proceeding.

 

 

September 30, 2014

Posted on by

Institution Decisions

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00102, Paper 8, CBM2014-00103, Paper 8, (September 30, 2014) the Board instituted a covered business method review of claims 1, 2, and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221 (but not challenged claim 32).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00102.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00104, Paper 9, CBM2014-00105, Paper 9, the Board denied covered business method review of  claims 1, 3, 11, and 13–15 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00106, Paper 8, CBM2014-00107, Paper 8, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of claim 1, of U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 (but not challenged claim 6–8, 10, and 11).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00106.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00108, Paper 8, CBM2014-00109, Paper 8, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 (but not challenged claim 1, 2, 7, 13, 15, and 31 ).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00108.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00112, Paper 7, CBM2014-00113, Paper 7, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of claims 1, 6–8, 12, 13, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 (but not challenged claim 14).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00112.

In IGB Automotive Ltd. v, Gentherm GmbH,  IPR2014-00666, Paper 7, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,229,129 (but not challenged claims 8-12).

In Pacific Market International, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC, IPR2014-00561, Paper 9, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 14–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,997,442 (but not as to challenged claims 3 and 11–13).

In Ford Motor Company v.  Paice LLC, IPR2014-00570, Paper 10, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 30–33, 35, 36, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (but not as to challenged claim 38).

In Ford Motor Company v.  Paice LLC, IPR2014-00571, Paper 12, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21, 23, and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (all of the challenged claims).

In Ford Motor Company v.  Paice LLC, IPR2014-00579, Paper 12, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 8, 18, 21, 23, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (all of the challenged claims).

September 4, 2014

Posted on by

Institution Decisions

In Fiserv, Inc. v. DataTreasury Corporation, CBM2014-00087, Paper 6 (September 4, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–42, 45–49, 55, 58–60, 64, 66–70, 73–75, 78, 80, 82–84, 88–91, 102, 105–110, and 114–123 of U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988, but not 3-7, 9-15, 1719-21, 23-24, 27, 30-35, 37, 43-44, 50-54, 56-56, 61-63, 65, 71-72, 76-77, 79, 81, 85-87, 92-101, 103-104, 111-123.

.In Fiserv, Inc. v. DataTreasury Corporation, CBM2014-00088, Paper 6 (September 4, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of  claims 1, 2, 9, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–43, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, and 66 of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 (but not claims 3-7, 10-15, 17, 18, 19-21, 24, 27, 30-35, 27, 44-47, 49, 52-53, 56-59, 61, 64-65).

In MasterCard International Incorporated v. D’Agostino, IPR2014-00543, Paper 8 (September 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–38 of U.S. Patent No. 8,036,988 (all of the challenged claims).

In MasterCard International Incorporated v. D’Agostino, IPR2014-00544, Paper 7 (September 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,486 (all of the challenged claims).

Dispositions

In BMO Harris Bank National Association v. Stambler, CBM2014-00129, Paper (September 4, 2014), the Board terminated the covered business method review on the joint motion of the parties.

In SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00042, Paper 42 (September 4, 2014), the Board terminated the covered business method review on the joint motion fo the parties.

 

 

 

Common Mistakes in Petitions

Posted on by

In Mitchell International, Inc. v. Audatex North America, Inc., CBM2014-00171, Paper 3 CBM2014-00173, Paper 3 CBM2014-00174, Paper 3 (August 29, 2014), the Board granted the Petition a filing date but gave petitioner five days to correct defects:

  • Footnotes should be doublespaced. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii).
  • Failure to affix exhibit labels to the lower right corner of the first page of the exhibits. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1), (2)(ii).
  • Failure to sequentially number each page of the exhibits.  37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(i).

 

Interest of Justice Require Consideration of One-Day-Late Documents

Posted on by

In Callidus Software Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc., CBM2013-00052, Paper 39,  CBM2013-00053, Paper 35, CBM2013-00054, Paper 37,(August 29, 2014), the Board denied patent owner’s motion to expunge the petitioner late-filed papers.  The Board said that weighing the prejudice to patent owner of the one day late filing versus the prejudice to Petitioner if it did not consider, on the merits, the papers, it was in the interests of justice to consider the late–filed documents.

August 22, 2014

Posted on by

New Filings

LG Display Co., Ltd. filed IPR2014-01362 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 assigned to INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Dispositions

In Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc., IPR2013-00159, Paper 71 (August 22, 2012), the Board held that claims 1–9, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183 are unpatentable, and denied the patent owners motion to amend.

In U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC, CBM 2013-00014, Paper 33, the Board held that claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 30, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582.

In Xerox Corp. v. RR Donnelley & Sons Co., IPR2013-00529, Paper 21 (August 22, 2014) the Board terminated the inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties.

 

 

August 14, 2014

Posted on by

New Filings

Merial Limited  filed IPR2014-01279 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,501,799, assigned to VIRBAC.

Institution Decisions

In E Ink Corporation v. Research Frontiers Incorporated, IPR2014-00422, Paper 6 (August 14, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1–12, 14–20, 22–27, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,606,185.

Dispositions

In Coupa Software, Inc., v. Ariba, Inc., CBM2014-00061, Paper 16 (August 14, 2014) the Board terminated the proceeding on the joint motion of the parties.

Rehearing Decisions

In Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., IPR2014-00274, Paper 14 (August 14, 2104) the Board denied rehearing of its decision not to institute inter partes review of review of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,018,768.

 

Serve But Don’t File Supplemental Evidence

Posted on by

In Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Segin Software LLC, CBM2014-00051, paper 20 (August 13, 2014), the Board reminded parties that a party may rely on supplmental evidence when there is an objection to an Exhibit, supplemental, and that under Rule 42.64(b)(2) the supplemental evidence should be served on the objecting party, but it is not not to be filed with Board without authorization to do so.

 

August 12, 2014

Posted on by

Dispositions

In Google Inc. Jongerius Panoramic Technologies, LLC, IPR2013-00191, Paper 70 (August 12, 2014) the Board issued a final written decision that claims –6, 10–15, 17– 19, 21, 23–25, 27, and 28 (all of the challengd claims) of U.S. Patent No. 6,563,529 were unpatentable,

Institution Decisions

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00072, Paper 8 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,794.

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00073, Paper 8 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,761,387.

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00074, Paper 9 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,142.

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00075, Paper 8 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,827,119.

In Google Inc. v. Micrografx, LLC, IPR2013-00532, Paper 11 (August 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633.

In Google Inc. v. Micrografx, LLC, IPR2013-00533, Paper 11 (August 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 16, 19, 44, 54–57, 59, 61–66, 68, 69, and 71 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,057,854.

In Google Inc. v. Micrografx, LLC, IPR2013-00534, Paper 11 (August 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,552,732.

Rehearing

Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP ASSETS B.V., IPR2013-00043, Paper 104 (August 12, 2014) denied petitioner’s requset for hearing of its final written decision.

Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP ASSETS B.V., IPR2013-00044, Paper 101 (August 12, 2014) denied petitioner’s requset for hearing of its final written decision.

 

 

 

August 6, 2014

Posted on by

New Filings

Ericsson Inc. filed IPR2014-01170 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994, assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC.

Veeva Systems Inc. filed IPR2014-01253 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,634,556, assigned to Silicon Valley Bank.

Institution Decisions

In Monosol RX, LLC v. Arius Two, Inc., IPR2014-00376, Paper 11 (August 6, 2014), the Board instittued inter partes review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,579,019.

In Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00083, Paper 17 (August 6, 2014), the Board denied covered business method review of claims 151, 159, 161, 162, 181, 189, 191, 192, 256, 264, 266, and 267 of U.S. Patent No. 6,577,054.

In Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00084, Paper 18 (August 6, 2014), the Board denied covered business method review of claims 1, 8, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,658,464.

In Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00257, Paper  11 (August 6, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,496,674.

Dispositions

In SAS Institute Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, IPR2013-00226, Paper 38, (August 6, 2014), the Board issued a final written decision finding that claims 1, 3, and 5-10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,110,936 are unpatentable, but not challenged claim 4.

In Hewlett-Packard Company v. MCM Portfolio LLC, IPR2013-00227, Paper 31 (August 6, 2014), the Board issued a final written decision finding that claims 7, 11, 19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,549 (all of the challenged claims) are unpatentable.

In Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. v. LifeScan Scotland Ltd., IPR2013-00247, Paper 27 (August 6, 2014), the Board found that claims 1-3 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,250,105 were unpatentable.

Decisions on Rehearing

In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00377, Paper 17  IPR2014-00378, Paper 18 (August 6, 2014), the Board denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing of the denial of inter partes review.

In Symantec Corporation v. RPOST Communications Limited, IPR2014-00357, Paper 18 (August 6, 2015), the Board denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of its institution decision.