September 30, 2014

Institution Decisions

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00102, Paper 8, CBM2014-00103, Paper 8, (September 30, 2014) the Board instituted a covered business method review of claims 1, 2, and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221 (but not challenged claim 32).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00102.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00104, Paper 9, CBM2014-00105, Paper 9, the Board denied covered business method review of  claims 1, 3, 11, and 13–15 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00106, Paper 8, CBM2014-00107, Paper 8, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of claim 1, of U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 (but not challenged claim 6–8, 10, and 11).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00106.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00108, Paper 8, CBM2014-00109, Paper 8, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 (but not challenged claim 1, 2, 7, 13, 15, and 31 ).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00108.

In Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00112, Paper 7, CBM2014-00113, Paper 7, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted a covered business method review of claims 1, 6–8, 12, 13, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 (but not challenged claim 14).  The Board then consolidated the two proceedings under CBM2014-00112.

In IGB Automotive Ltd. v, Gentherm GmbH,  IPR2014-00666, Paper 7, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,229,129 (but not challenged claims 8-12).

In Pacific Market International, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC, IPR2014-00561, Paper 9, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 14–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,997,442 (but not as to challenged claims 3 and 11–13).

In Ford Motor Company v.  Paice LLC, IPR2014-00570, Paper 10, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 30–33, 35, 36, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (but not as to challenged claim 38).

In Ford Motor Company v.  Paice LLC, IPR2014-00571, Paper 12, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21, 23, and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (all of the challenged claims).

In Ford Motor Company v.  Paice LLC, IPR2014-00579, Paper 12, (September 30, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 8, 18, 21, 23, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (all of the challenged claims).

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.