Articles Posted in Inter Partes Review

Published on:

by

Plaintiff GT Nexus, Inc. (“GT Nexus”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Inttra, Inc. (“Inttra”) seeking a declaration that four of Inttra’s patents (“patents-in-suit”) were invalid and have not been infringed. Inttra filed counterclaims against GT Nexus for infringement of the patents-in-suit.

The district court had previously stayed the action pending the ex parte re-examination of the patents-in-suit. After the patents emerged from the ex parte re-examination, Inttra moved to lift the stay. GT Nexus opposed arguing that the stay should not be lifted because it had filed petitions for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The district court then denied Inttra’s motion, finding that each of the four factors for determining whether to stay a case pending CBM review weighed in favor of a stay. In its order, the district court “stated that if CBM review is granted, the case will remain stayed pending completion of the CBM review proceedings. Id. The Court also stated that if CBM review is denied, Inttra may file a motion requesting to lift the stay and reopen the action. Id.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Ecolab Inc. (“Ecolab”) filed a patent infringement action alleging that Gurtler infringed Ecolab’s patent for “SANITIZING LAUNDRY SOUR,” United States Patent No. 6,262,013 (the “‘013 Patent”). Gurtler subsequently filed a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘013 Patent. Gurtler then filed a motion to stay and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) granted Gurtler’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of all claims of the ‘013 Patent.

In support of its motion to stay and lack of prejudice to Gurtler, Gurtler argued that Ecolab tactically delayed serving its complaint for four months, which demonstrates that “time is not of the essence” to Ecolab. Additionally, Gurtler argued that because the case was in the early stages of discovery, there was no prejudice to Ecolab. Ecolab argued it will be unduly prejudiced because it is one of Gurtler’s direct competitors, its ability to litigate its claims will suffer, and because Gurtler delayed in seeking reexamination.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Ecolab Inc. (“Ecolab”) filed a patent infringement action alleging that Gurtler infringed Ecolab’s patent for “SANITIZING LAUNDRY SOUR,” United States Patent No. 6,262,013 (the “‘013 Patent”). Gurtler subsequently filed a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘013 Patent. Gurtler then filed a motion to stay and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) granted Gurtler’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of all claims of the ‘013 Patent.

In support of its motion to stay and lack of prejudice to Gurtler, Gurtler argued that Ecolab tactically delayed serving its complaint for four months, which demonstrates that “time is not of the essence” to Ecolab. Additionally, Gurtler argued that because the case was in the early stages of discovery, there was no prejudice to Ecolab. Ecolab argued it will be unduly prejudiced because it is one of Gurtler’s direct competitors, its ability to litigate its claims will suffer, and because Gurtler delayed in seeking reexamination.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the defendants moved to stay a patent infringement action pending an IPR, the district court analyzed the impact of a potential withdrawal of petitioners from the IPR. The district court began its analysis with the understanding that this was a contingency that might not occur. “The contingency of a PTAB decision after IPR petitioner withdrawal would arise only if all IPR petitioners were to withdraw. I have no idea whether this is at all likely. Nor do I have a basis to speculate upon the reasons why a PTAB petitioner may choose to withdraw after the case has progressed to the point at which a written decision would be appropriate.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Card-Monroe Corp. (“CMC”) manufactures tufting machines and equipment. CMC holds several patents that pertain to its machines and equipment. Tuftco Corp. (“Tuftco”) is a competitor of CMC, which also engages in the manufacture and sale of tufting machines. CMC filed a patent infringement action against Tuftco, and Tuftco subsequently filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit. Tuftco then filed a Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review of Proceedings.

In their briefs on the motion to stay, the parties disagreed as to whether CMC would be unduly prejudiced by a stay of these proceedings. Tuftco argued that the “only potential basis for a claim of undue prejudice is the delay inherent to any stay of proceedings,” but CMC claimed that it would be prejudiced if the district court stayed these proceedings because the parties are direct competitors.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Barco filed a patent infringement action in September 2011 against Defendants Eizo Nanao Corporation and Eizo Nanao Technologies, Inc. (“Eizo”), alleging that Eizo infringed various claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,639,849 (the ‘849 patent). After Barco filed a reissue application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”), in which it added seventy-eight new claims to the original thirty-seven claims of the ‘849 patent, the district court stayed the action.

Eizo subsequently filed an inter partes reexamination, seeking to reexamine the original thirty-seven claims of the ‘849 patent and the district court continued the stay even though the patent was reissued by the PTO as RE43,707 (the ‘707 patent), because the inter partes reexamination proceedings initiated by Eizo were still pending before the PTO.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The district court had previously stayed the patent infringement action between Nidec Motor Corporation and Broad Ocean Motor pending the PTO’s decision on whether to institute an inter partes review on three of the patents-in-suit. After the PTO declined to institute review on one of the patents, the plaintiff moved to lift the stay on that patent.

As explained by the district court, “the parties notified the Court that, on January 21, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) instituted Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) against the ‘895 and ‘349 Patents but it denied institution against the ‘970 Patent. The parties state that they met and conferred on January 26, 2015, but the parties did not agree as to whether the Court should lift the stay at this time with respect to the ‘970 Patent.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-3657 (N.D. Cal.), MLC filed its lawsuit on August 12, 2014, accusing Micron of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 (“the ‘571 patent”). On October 15, 2014, Micron answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘571 patent. At the initial case management conference on November 21, 2014, the Court set a further case management conference for March 20, 2015, the tutorial hearing for June 10, 2015, and the claim construction hearing for June 17, 2015.

On December 24, 2014, Micron filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), challenging the patentability of at least each asserted claim of the ‘571 patent. The PTO accorded the IPR petition a filing date of December 24, 2014, and thus the PTO must issue a decision on whether to institute the IPR no later than June 24, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Micron filed its motion to stay pending the IPR. In its motion, Micron sought a stay through a final written decision of the IPR including any appeals to the Federal Circuit. MCL partially opposed only the portion of the stay beyond the final written decision of the PTO rather than after all appeals have been exhausted. MCL also argued that the case should not be stayed at this time until after the claim construction was completed.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR2014-01510, 01511, and 01513, in connection with its preliminary response the Patent Owner Mag Aerospace Industries, LLC, submitted an expert report by its expert in the related litigation. The expert report addressed issues relevant to the IPR proceedings, including the patentability of the claims in light of the prior art asserted in the IPRs. As explained below, the Board held that the expert report constituted “new” evidence and thus violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(c) even though it was created for the related litigation and not expressly for the IPR proceedings.

The Petition was filed on September 16, 2014. The expert report, filed as Exhibit 2002, is dated November 4, 2014, and was filed on January 2, 2015, along with the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. It also is uncontested that the expert report was created for related litigation according to the schedule for that litigation.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR2013-00357, Patent Owner Overland Storage, Inc. filed a request for rehearing of the final written decision holding that claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 are unpatentable. The basis for the patent owner’s reconsideration request was that, among other things, the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof because it offered no expert testimony. As explained below, the Board rejected this position and held that a lack of expert testimony is not dispositive.
Continue reading