January 22, 2015
Authored and Edited by Aaron L. Parker
December was a big month—and an interesting way to end 2014—at the PTAB. As our updated statistics show, claims have finally survived CBM review, and the Board has granted-in-part the first set of contested Motions to Amend. See Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc., IPRs2013-00402, -00403, Paper 33 (Dec. 30, 2014).
First, in a set of five CBMs styled Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, the petitioner successfully challenged 52 claims, including one entire patent—but 24 claims in four patents survived review.
CBM Case | Cancelled | Survived |
Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00033, Paper 51 (Dec. 17, 2014) | 15 | 12 |
Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00034, Paper 45 (Dec. 17, 2014) | 5 | 0 |
Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00035, Paper 45 (Dec. 17, 2014) | 26 | 2 |
Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00044, Paper 47 (Dec. 17, 2014) | 0 | 6 |
Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00046, Paper 46 (Dec. 17, 2014) | 6 | 4 |
In those cases, the Board found the petitioner failed to prove that a printed publication used for many of the grounds to reject the claims—a technical report by a Dr. Olga Ratsimor—was a printed publication; they found it was not publicly accessible before the critical date. See, e.g., CBM2013-00033, Paper 51. Reasoning by analogy, the Board compared the purportedly internal technical report with theses placed in university libraries, and found that the lack of indexing or proof of public availability, among other things, doomed the petitioner’s use of the Ratsimor paper. Thus, the ground failed and the claims survived.
Second, the PTAB granted two more Motions to Amend on December 30, 2014. These related IPRs—the second and third Motions to Amend granted—mark the first grant of contested substitute claims. See Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00402, -00403 Paper 35 (Dec. 30, 2014).
The petitioner proposed six substitute claims in each IPR. The Board granted two substitute claims in each—i.e., four out of twelve proposed substitute claims. (In contrast, they cancelled all 27 originally issued claims in one patent and all 12 originally issued claims in the other.)
The panel considered substitute claims in two related IPRs on two patents, granting some but denying others. One of the allowed substitute claims contained 332 words, compared to the original’s 37 words, according to a Microsoft Word word-count. See IPR2013-00402, Paper 35, at 8.
Special thanks to Daniel Klodowski, Elliot Cook, Joseph Schaffner, Kai Rajan, and Cara Lasswell for their help with statistics, support, and the project.
Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Building a Strong ADC Patent Portfolio – From Prosecution and Litigation Perspectives
May 15, 2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.