In International Business Machines Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00672, Paper 14 (December 23, 2014), the Board denied Pettioner’s request for rehearing of the Board’s decision not to institute IPR.

In Handi Quilter, Inc. v. Bernina International AG, IPR2014-00270, Paper 17 (December 31, 2014), the Board granted petitioner’s request for rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of inter partes review.

Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v. Celgard, LLC, IPR2014-00524, Paper 27 (November 21, 2014) the Board denied rehearing of its decision not to institute inter partes review of claims 1-6 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586.

SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam, IPR2013-00194, Paper 69 (November 21, 2014), the Board denied rehearing of the Board’s Final Written Decision that claims 1–8 and 10–12 of U.S. Patent 8,104,492 are unpatentable.

SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam, IPR2013-00195, Paper 62 (November 21, 2014), the Board denied rehearing of the Board’s Final Written Decision that claims 1–6, 10–12, 14–17 and 35 of U.S. Patent 5,987,500 are unpatentable.

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC, IPR2014-00570, Paper 18 (November 26, 2014), the Board denied patent owner’s request for rehearing of its decision to institute inter partes review.

Ebay Inc. v. Moneycat Ltd., CBM2014-00091, CBM2014-00092, CBM2014-00093 (December 1, 2014), the Board denied the patent owner’s request for rehearing of the decision instituted covered business method review.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, IPR2014-00681, Paper 18, IPR2014-00682, Paper 18 (December 11, 2014), the Board granted rehearing but declined to change its decision on petitioner’s request to reconsider not instituting inter partes review as to certain claims.

Institution Decisions

In Brainlab AG v. Sarif Biomedical LLC, IPR2014-00753, Paper 10 (October 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 10–11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,755,725 (but not as to challenged claims 1-9.

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00723, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 15–19, 22, 23, 25–27, 30–31, 34–37, and 44–46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873.

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00711, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 10–12 of U.S. Patent No.8,230,099 (but not challenged claim 1).

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00709, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16–18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,028,323.

.In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00740, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 9–11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,045,952  (but not challenged claims 4 and 12).

.Dispositions

In Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Ziptronix, Inc., Paper 19 (November 4, 2014), the Board granted patent owner’s request for adverse judgment for under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) with respect to claims 1-14 and 53-60 of U.S. Patent No. 6,563,133.

In Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH v. Nikon Corporation, IPR2013-00362, Paper 41 (November 4, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 1–3, 8–12, 16–20, 23–26, and 29–33 (all of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,348,575 were unpatentable.

In Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH v. Nikon Corporation, IPR2013-00363, Paper 34 (November 4, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 55–67 (all of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,348,575 were unpatentable.

Rehearing Decisions

Iron Dome LLC v. Chinook Licensing DE, LLC, IPR2014-00514, Paper 12 (November 4, 2014) the Board denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision not to institute inter partes review.