Enough is Enough

In Zetec, Inc. v, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 (July 23, 2014), the Board denied the institution of inter partes review because there were too many grounds.  The Board observed that “[t]he Petition lists, in a summary table, 68 grounds of unpatentability that rely on one or more of fourteen references” and thus the Petition presents “no fewer than 127 asserted grounds of unpatentability.”

The Board quoted from the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide:

Although parties are given wide latitude in how they present their cases, the Board’s experience is that the presentation of an overwhelming number of issues tends to detract from the argument being presented . . . . Thus, parties should . . . focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.

Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012).  The Board concluded that the Petition did not provide sufficient grounds as required by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4),(5), and further that it placed a significant and unfair burden on the patent owner to respond to “underdeveloped arguments for numerous asserted grounds.”  Finally the Board found that the petition “would place a significant burden on the Board and contravene the efficient administration of the Office.”

July 23, 2014

Institution Decisions

In Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC,  IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 (July 23, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,823,269.

In CustomPlay, LLC v. Clearplay, Inc., IPR2014-00339, Paper 12 (July 23, 2014), the Board granted inter partes review of claims 1-2 and 4-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,526,784, but not claim 3.

In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00405, Paper 10 (July 23, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 28-31, 35, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180 as untimely under 35 USC 315(b).

In Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00401, Paper 10 (July 23, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 28-31, 35, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180 as untimely under 35 USC 315(b).

In MotionPoint Corporation v. TransPerfect Global, Inc., CBM2014-00060, Paper 8 (July 23, 2014), instituted claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,857,022.

 

 

 

July 18, 2014

New Filings

Cisco Systems, Inc. filed IPR2014-01179 challenging U.S. Paten No. 6,901,048 assigned to Constellation Technologies LLC.

Cisco Systems, Inc. filed IPR2014-01180 challenging U.S. Paten No. 7,154,879 assigned to Constellation Technologies LLC.

Ericcson Inc. filed UPR2014-01185 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127 assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC.

Institution Decisions

In Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd. v. adidas AG, DER2014-00002, Paper 19 (July 18, 2014), the Board denied institution of a derivation proceeding.

In Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd. v. adidas AG, DER2014-00006, Paper 6 (July 18, 2014), the Board denied institution of a derivation proceeding.

In First Quality Retail Services, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., IPR2014-00336, Paper 8, (July 18, 2014), the Board instuted an inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,622,984.

Final Writen Decision

In  ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00180, Paper 47 (July 18, 2014), the Board found claims 1, 3-5, 9-13, 15, 22-24, 26, 28, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,068 were unpatentable.

 

July 17, 2014

New Petitions Filed

Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, inc. filed IPR2014-01178 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057, assigned to Enova Technology Corporation.

Final Written Decision

In Primera Technology, Inc. v, Accupalte, IPR2013-00196, Paper 50 (July 17, 2014), the Board held that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,013,884 were unpatentable.

 

 

 

July 16, 2014

New Filings

Novelty, Inc. filed IPR2014-01171 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,021,594 assogned to Thomas E. Hundley.

CoolIT Systems, Inc. filed IPR2014-01172 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,749,968.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01173 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,648,050.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01174 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,283,192.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01175 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01176 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,230,896.

 

 

 

Institution Decisions

in American United Life Insurance Company v. Annuitek, LLC,  CBM2014-00120, Paper 10 (July 16, 2014), the Board terminated the covered business method review before institution on the joint motion of the parties.

In Sequenom Inc. v. The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, IPR2014-00337, Paper 11 (July 16, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1–17, of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,415.

Final Written Decisions

In Norwex USA, Inc. v. UMF Corp., IPR2014-00151, Paper 24 (July 16, 2014), the Board terminated the inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties.

 

July 15, 2014

Institution Decisons

In Symantec Corporation v. RPOST Communications Limited, IPR2014-00353, Paper 15 (July 15, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of 1-30 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,628.