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.

 

 

This entry was posted in Covered Business Methods, Inter Partes Review 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.