August 12, 2014

Posted on by

Dispositions

In Google Inc. Jongerius Panoramic Technologies, LLC, IPR2013-00191, Paper 70 (August 12, 2014) the Board issued a final written decision that claims –6, 10–15, 17– 19, 21, 23–25, 27, and 28 (all of the challengd claims) of U.S. Patent No. 6,563,529 were unpatentable,

Institution Decisions

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00072, Paper 8 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,794.

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00073, Paper 8 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,761,387.

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00074, Paper 9 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,142.

In GTNX, Inc. v. Innttra, Inc., CBM2014-00075, Paper 8 (August 12, 2014), the Board intituted covered business method patent review of claims 1-10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,827,119.

In Google Inc. v. Micrografx, LLC, IPR2013-00532, Paper 11 (August 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633.

In Google Inc. v. Micrografx, LLC, IPR2013-00533, Paper 11 (August 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 16, 19, 44, 54–57, 59, 61–66, 68, 69, and 71 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,057,854.

In Google Inc. v. Micrografx, LLC, IPR2013-00534, Paper 11 (August 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,552,732.

Rehearing

Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP ASSETS B.V., IPR2013-00043, Paper 104 (August 12, 2014) denied petitioner’s requset for hearing of its final written decision.

Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP ASSETS B.V., IPR2013-00044, Paper 101 (August 12, 2014) denied petitioner’s requset for hearing of its final written 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.