More Details, Details

Posted on by

In ATopTech, Inc. v. Sunopsis, Inc., IPR2014-01160, Paper 3,(July 25, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted the absense of an exhibit list referencing the correct exhibit numbers are required by 37 C.F.R §42.63(e), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defect.

In ATopTech, Inc. v. Sunopsis, Inc., IPR2014-01150, Paper 3, and IPR2014-01159, Paper 3,(July 25, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted the absense of a correct certificate of service required by 37 C.F.R §42.6(e), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defect.

In Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-01035, Paper 6 (July 24, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted that the petition used too narrow a font in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii)(A); and failed to certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for inter partes review as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defects.

In Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-01032, Paper 5, IPR2014-01033, Paper 5, and IPR2014-01036, Paper 5 (July 24, 2014),  the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted that the petition used too narrow a font in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii)(A); failed to certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for inter partes review as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) contained incorrect (non-double) spacing contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii) (charts only listing claim limitations should be double-spaced); and failed to certify that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting the review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in the petition as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defects.

In Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-01034, Paper 6 (July 24, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted that the petition used too narrow a font in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii)(A); failed to certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for inter partes review as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); and failed to have a coplete Exhibit list, and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defects.

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Bryan Wheelock. Bookmark the permalink.

About Bryan Wheelock

Education J.D., Washington University in St. Louis B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering, Duke University Bryan Wheelock's practice includes preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications and drafting of intellectual property agreements, including non-compete agreements. He has brought and defended lawsuits in federal and state courts relating to intellectual property and has participated in seizures of counterfeit and infringing goods. Bryan prepares and prosecutes U.S. and foreign patent applications for medical devices, mechanical and electromechanical devices, manufacturing machinery and processes, metal alloys and other materials. He also does a substantial amount of patentability searching, trademark availability searching and patent and trademark infringement studies. In addition to his practice at Harness Dickey, Bryan is an Adjunct Professor at Washington University School of Law and Washington University School of Engineering.