November 4, 2014

Institution Decisions

In Brainlab AG v. Sarif Biomedical LLC, IPR2014-00753, Paper 10 (October 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 10–11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,755,725 (but not as to challenged claims 1-9.

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00723, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 15–19, 22, 23, 25–27, 30–31, 34–37, and 44–46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873.

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00711, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 10–12 of U.S. Patent No.8,230,099 (but not challenged claim 1).

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00709, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16–18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,028,323.

.In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00740, Paper 7 (November 4, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 9–11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,045,952  (but not challenged claims 4 and 12).

.Dispositions

In Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Ziptronix, Inc., Paper 19 (November 4, 2014), the Board granted patent owner’s request for adverse judgment for under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) with respect to claims 1-14 and 53-60 of U.S. Patent No. 6,563,133.

In Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH v. Nikon Corporation, IPR2013-00362, Paper 41 (November 4, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 1–3, 8–12, 16–20, 23–26, and 29–33 (all of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,348,575 were unpatentable.

In Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH v. Nikon Corporation, IPR2013-00363, Paper 34 (November 4, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 55–67 (all of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,348,575 were unpatentable.

Rehearing Decisions

Iron Dome LLC v. Chinook Licensing DE, LLC, IPR2014-00514, Paper 12 (November 4, 2014) the Board denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision not to institute inter partes review.

This entry was posted in Inter Partes Review and tagged 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.