Published on:

by

In inter partes proceeding Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute et al., IPR2014-00320, Petitioner Apple sought a second request for rehearing, before an expanded panel of the PTAB, on the Board’s decision not to institute an inter partes review of RPI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798 (“the ‘778 Patent”). The Board held that Apple’s request was unauthorized and therefore ordered it expunged from the record of the proceeding.

On January 3, 2014, Apple initially filed its IPR petition seeking invalidity of the ‘798 Patent based three pieces of prior art that Apple alleged anticipated and/or rendered obvious certain claims of the ‘798 Patent. On April 17, 2014, RPI filed its preliminary response asserting that the Board should deny the petition just as it denied Apple’s first petition for inter partes review of the ‘798 Patent. In its preliminary response, RPI asserted that the Board already considered (and rejected) the same grounds and prior art that Apple now relies on in the second petition. Accordingly, RPI argued that the second petition should be denied because “[t]he Board denied the first petition [which included the same prior art asserted in the second petition] as to all challenged claims because Apple failed to establish that it would prevail in showing that even a single claim of the ‘798 Patent is unpatentable.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the Macronix International Co., Ltd. et al. v. Spansion LLC, the PTAB denied Petitioner’s motion for joinder under Section 315(c). On November 8, 2013, the Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027 (“the ‘027 patent”), which was later granted on May 8, 2014. Subsequently, on June 4, 2014, the Petitioner filed a second petition for inter partes review of the ‘027 patent. At that time, the Petitioner also moved to join the two IPR proceedings and proposed a revised schedule in the event its motion for joinder was granted.

The Board explained the factors establishing entitlement to joinder:

As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, 4 (Apr. 24, 2013).

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the Ariosa Diagnostics v. ISIS Innovation Limited inter partes review, the PTAB set for the guidelines for taking depositions in a foreign language as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c). In addition to the requirement of 42.53(c) that the party calling the witness must initiate a conference with the Board at least five days before the deposition, the Board directed the parties to the following guidelines:

In the guidelines below, “party” refers to the party proffering the witness, and “opponent” refers to the party cross-examining the witness.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronic North America Corporation, et al., the Philips Defendants moved for leave to amend their answer to add a defense of inequitable conduct based on Masimo’s alleged inequitable conduct during the ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. Masimo opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was futile and unduly prejudicial. As summarized below, the Court sided with Philips and allowed the amendment and related discovery.

After setting forth the good cause standard for leave to amend after a deadline in the scheduling order, the Court recited the substantive elements of inequitable conduct required to plead this defense:

“(l) an individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application made an affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact, failed to disclose material information, or submitted false material information; and (2) the individual did so with a specific intent to deceive the PTO.” Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1327 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “[I]n pleading inequitable conduct in patent cases, Rule 9(b) requires identification of the specific who, what, when, where, and how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the PTO.” Id. at 1327. Generally, the materiality required to establish inequitable conduct is “but-for materiality.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As for the intent prong, Rule 9(b) states that “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of mind of a person may be averred generally.” The relevant “conditions of mind” for inequitable conduct include: “(l) knowledge of the withheld material information or of the falsity of the material misrepresentation, and (2) specific intent to deceive the PTO.” Exergen, 575 F.3d at 1327.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In CTP Innovations, LLC v. Solo Printing, Case No. 1:14-cv-21499-UU, the Court denied, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion to stay the litigation pending the inter partes review of the two patents-in-suit.

In its motion to stay, the Defendant argued the traditional factors considered by court favored a stay, including that the USPTO’s analysis will simplify the issues in litigation because third party petitions have challenged all claims of the asserted patents, that the case was in its earliest stages having just been filed a little over two months ago, and that there would be no prejudice to the plaintiff because, as a non-practicing entity, it does not compete in the marketplace with the Defendant and thus any infringement, if proven, could be adequately remedied by monetary damages.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR2014-00954, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Petravick, Deshpande, and Clements) issued a decision regarding the proper identification of lead and backup counsel listed in the powers of attorneys in cases involving multiple parties constituting a single Petitioner. The Board explained:

According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.2, “Petitioner” means “the party filing a petition requesting that a trial be instituted.” In circumstances not involving a motion for joinder or consolidation of separate proceedings, for each “petition” there is but a single party filing the petition, no matter how many companies are listed as petitioner or petitioners and how many companies are identified as real parties-in-interest. Thus, before the Board, the separate companies constitute and stand in the shoes of a single “Petitioner.” Because the eleven companies constitute, collectively, a single party, they must speak with a single voice, both in writing and oral representation.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The following 36 decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of April 1 through April 30, 2013.

CACD Decisions.bmp

The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com.

Published on:

by

The following twenty decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of May 1 through May 31, 2013.

May 1 to May 31 CACD Rulings.JPGThe authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com/a>.

Published on:

by

In a pair of recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board further clarified the requirements of filing a motion to amend the claims. These recent decisions supplement the Board’s recent decisions in IPR2012-00027 (Paper No. 26) and IPR2012-00005 (Paper No. 27) in which the Board provided guidance regarding the filing of motions to amend claims.

On June 26, in Oracle Corporation v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-00099, the Board (APJs Chang, Kim and Elluru) issued a decision following the patent owner’s intention to file a motion to amend the claims. In the telephone conference on the patent owner’s motion, the Board noted “that Clouding would have to account for the level of ordinary skill in the art and the basic skill set possessed by one with ordinary skill, and may not limit its consideration to just the references over which this trial was instituted.” In other words, in its motion the patent owner must demonstrate that the proposed amended claims address the grounds of rejection in light of the level of ordinary skill of a person skilled in the art as well as over the prior art, including prior art that the Board did not rely upon in granting the petition.

The Board also noted that “when indicating written description support in the specification, [the patent owner] should make reference to the disclosure in the original applications as filed, rather than to the portions of the issued patent, and provide sufficient explanation in addition to citations to the specification.”

Finally, the Board explained that “should an expert declaration be submitted in support of a motion to amend claims, the motion itself should set forth the arguments and explanations with appropriate pinpoint citations to the expert declarations, rather than just incorporating by reference the expert declarations.”

In Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, IPR1012-00042, the Board (APJs Blankenship, Medley and Bisk) issued a decision on the patent owner’s motion to amend in which the Board dismissed the motion without prejudice because the patent owner failed to list the proposed amended claims in the body of the motion and instead listed them in an appendix. The Board stated that “by doing so, [the patent owner] circumvented the motion page limit [of 15 pages].
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The following four decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of March 18 through March 29, 2013.

Thumbnail image for CACD Decisions dated 3-18-13 through 3-29-13.JPGThe authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com/a>.