November 19, 2014

Posted on by

Institution Decisions

In Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.. v. Zond, LLC, IPR 2014-01072, Paper 11 (November 19, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45, and 46 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (all of the challenged claims).

In Toshiba Corporation v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-01070, Paper 11 (November 19, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 30–37, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779.

In Toshiba Corporation v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-01074, Paper 11 (November 19, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779.

In Gillette Company v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-01019, Paper 13 (November 19, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779.

Dispositions

In Ricoh Americas Corp. v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, IPR2013-00302, the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 1–5 and 7–11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,986,426 (but not challenged claim 6) were unpatentable.

In Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentair Ltd., IPR2013-00285, Paper 47 (November 19, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,019,479 (the only challenged claim) was unpatentable.

In Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentair Ltd., IPR2013-00287, Paper 43 (November 19, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,704,051 (the only challenged claim) was unpatentable.

In Hewlett-Packard Company v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, IPR2013-00309, Paper 35 (November 19, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 1–12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,381 (but not challenged claim 13) were unpatentable.

In SAP America Inc. v. Clouding Corp., IPR2014-00299, Paper 24 (November 19, 2014), the Board terminated the proceeding on the joint motion of the parties.

In SAP America Inc. v. Clouding Corp., IPR2014-00300, Paper 21 (November 19, 2014), the Board terminated the proceeding on the joint motion of the parties.

In SAP America Inc. v. Clouding Corp., IPR2014-00308, Paper 20 (November 19, 2014), the Board terminated the proceeding on the joint motion of the parties.

 

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.