<\/p>\n
Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v.\u00a0Celgard, LLC<\/em>, IPR2014-00524, Paper 27 (November 21, 2014) the Board denied rehearing of its decision not to institute inter partes<\/em> review of claims 1-6 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586.<\/p>\n SAP America, Inc. v.\u00a0Arunachalam<\/em>, IPR2013-00194, Paper 69 (November 21, 2014), the Board denied rehearing of the Board’s\u00a0Final Written Decision that claims 1\u20138 and 10\u201312 of U.S. Patent 8,104,492 are unpatentable.<\/p>\n SAP America, Inc. v.\u00a0Arunachalam<\/em>, IPR2013-00195, Paper 62 (November 21, 2014), the Board denied rehearing of the Board’s\u00a0Final Written Decision that claims 1\u20136, 10\u201312, 14\u201317 and 35 of U.S. Patent 5,987,500 are unpatentable.<\/p>\n Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC<\/em>, IPR2014-00570, Paper 18 (November 26, 2014), the Board denied patent owner’s request for rehearing of its decision to institute inter partes review.<\/p>\n Ebay Inc. v. Moneycat Ltd., CBM2014-00091, CBM2014-00092,\u00a0CBM2014-00093 (December 1, 2014), the Board denied the patent owner’s request for rehearing of the decision instituted covered business method review.<\/p>\n International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC<\/em>,\u00a0IPR2014-00681, Paper 18,\u00a0IPR2014-00682, 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<\/em> review as to certain claims.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v.\u00a0Celgard, 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.\u00a0Arunachalam, IPR2013-00194, … Continue reading