December 22, 2014

Institution Decisions (4)

In Jiawei Technology (USA) Ltd. v. Simon Richmond, IPR2014-00935, Paper 11 (December 22, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7, 9, 10, 14, 17–20, 23, 28, 43, 45 and 48–50 (all 21 of the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 8,089,370.

In Nestle USA, Inc.v. Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2014-01235, Paper 12 (December 22, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 18–20 (all the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013.

In Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc., 2014-01027, Paper 16, (December 22, 2014) the Board declined to institute inter partes review of claims claims 13–20, 25, and 36 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,020,980.

In Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc., 2014-01028, Paper 13, (December 22, 2014) the Board declined to institute inter partes review of claims 1–12, 21–24, 26–35 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,020,980.

Dispositions (3)
In Metavante Corp. v. Checkfree Corp., CBMR2013-00032, Paper 50 (December 22, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision holding that claims 1-60 of U.S. Patent No. 7,792,749 are unpatentable because they do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, IPR2013-00440, Paper 41 (December 22, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision holding that claims 1–4, 6–13, 18–20, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 6,948,021 were unpatentable but not challenged claims 14–17 and 34–36. (16 out of 23 claims)

In Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. CheckFree Corporation, CMB2014-00030, Paper 51 (December 22, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,853,524 are not patentable.

In Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. CheckFree Corporation, CMB2014-00031, Paper 49 (December 22, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.7,996,311 are not patentable.

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.