Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, 6-12-cv-00499 (TXED May 27, 2015, Order) (Craven, M.J.)
Friday, May 29, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC, et al v. Ford Motor Company, 3-11-cv-05503 (WAWD May 26, 2015, Order) (Settle, J.)
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Buying and Selling Intellectual Property Rights Constitutes “Financial Product or Service” for CBM Review
Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Getty Images (US), Inc., CBM2015-00023 (PTAB May 21, 2015, Order) (Tierney, APJ)
Is the PTAB more likely to institute an IPR if the district court stays concurrent litigation?
A Docket Navigator subscriber recently asked us this question so we decided to investigate. As it turns out, there appears to be some correlation between a district court’s decision to stay a case pending IPR and the outcome of the PTAB’s institution decision. Click here to view a summary of our findings.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Smith & Nephew Incorporated, et al v. Arthrex, Incorporated, 3-04-cv-00029 (ORD May 19, 2015, Order) (Mosman, J.)
Friday, May 22, 2015
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:00 PM - 1:45 PM CDT
In this interactive webinar, users will learn how to find the answers to a list of questions that came up in the recent PTAB IP Counsel Exchange in San Jose, using Docket Navigator. Participants will gain practical knowledge about how to find PTAB information based on real data, removing the need to “guess” how the Board is interpreting current legal issues.
A list of questions that arose during the conference was created, and here are a few examples:
- What are the success rates of stays pending IPR or CBM in the district courts? Are stays more or less likely in “experienced” patent courts?
- How can I find PTAB decisions interpreting real parties-in-interest?
- How many patents have been cancelled by the new PTAB proceedings?
- How many times has unpatentable subject matter (USC §101) been granted (or denied) as a ground for trial in the PTAB?
- What district court cases have relied on the issue of unpatentable subject matter (USC §101) as a basis for a decision?
The “take away” after the webinar will be the full list of the questions that were addressed, including live links to the search results for each question. When a link is clicked on, the answers will be updated in real-time. Free passwords to Docket Navigator are available to all in-house counsel participants upon request.
Time will be reserved for Q&A at the conclusion of the panel.
PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., 5-11-cv-00761 (NYND May 20, 2015, Order) (Sharpe, J.)
Institution of IPR Excluded from Evidence
The court granted plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude evidence of the institution of inter partes review. "There is no claim that any relevant final decision has been made. Any probative value in the fact that [defendant] has chosen to take advantage of other avenues and forums is substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury and [a] waste of time involved in explaining to the jury what is involved in such proceedings and the natural counterclaim that that such proceedings are Defendants’ attempt to vexatiously delay and multiply proceedings and impose costs on Plaintiff."
Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc. et al, 9-13-cv-00102 (TXED May 18, 2015, Order) (Clark, J.)
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Neal Technologies Incorporated v. Innovative Performance Research LLC, 2-15-cv-00311 (AZD May 19, 2015, Order) (Bolton, J.)
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al, 1-09-cv-00080 (DED May 18, 2015, Order) (Stark, J.)
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Fees Defendant Paid Litigation Counsel and Expert Witnesses Relevant to Reasonable Royalty Calculation
Ecolab USA, Inc., et al v. Diversey, Inc., 0-12-cv-01984 (MND May 15, 2015, Order) (Nelson, J.)
Monday, May 18, 2015
Ecolab USA, Inc., et al v. Diversey, Inc., 0-12-cv-01984 (MND May 14, 2015, Order) (Nelson, J.)
Friday, May 15, 2015
Ultratec, Inc. et al v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. et al, 3-13-cv-00346 (WIWD May 13, 2015, Order) (Crabb, J.)
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al, 8-14-cv-00111 (MDD May 12, 2015, Order) (Lupo, Special Master)
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Informatica Corporation, CBM2015-00010 (PTAB May 11, 2015, Order) (Petravick, APJ)
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Jericho Systems Corporation v. Axiomatics Inc. et al, 3-14-cv-02281 (TXND May 7, 2015, Order) (Kinkeade, J.)
Monday, May 11, 2015
Petition for Inter Partes Review by Apple Inc., IPR2015-00411 (PTAB May 7, 2015, Order) (Lee, APJ)
Friday, May 8, 2015
Plaintiff’s Apportionment of Royalty Rate Instead of Royalty Base Warrants Summary Judgment Against Damages Theory
The California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications, Inc. et al, 2-13-cv-07245 (CACD May 5, 2015, Order) (Pfaelzer, J.)
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Co. et al, 6-09-cv-00355 (TXED May 4, 2015, Order) (Davis, J.)
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Good Technology Corporation et al v. MobileIron, Inc., 5-12-cv-05826 (CAND May 4, 2015, Order) (Grewal, M.J.)
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
IPR Institutions Denied for Petitioners’ Failure to Show Support for § 102(e) Reference in Earlier Provisional Applications
Petition for Inter Partes Review by Securus Technologies, Inc., IPR2015-00153 (PTAB May 1, 2015, Order) (Boucher, APJ)
The Board declined to institute inter partes review of a patent claiming a spinal stabilization device on obviousness grounds because the petition failed to establish that an asserted reference was prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). "[T]he effective date of [the asserted patent] as prior art under § 102(e) is the date on which an application in [the patent's] priority chain was filed that discloses the information relied upon to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. [The petitioner] neither analyzes whether the [earlier provisional application] discloses the subject matter recited in the challenged claims nor provides a copy of the [provisional application] for the record in this proceeding. . . . [F]or purposes of this decision, we accord June 23, 2005, the filing date of the application that issued as [the asserted patent], rather than the earlier filing date of the provisional application to which [the patent] claims priority . . . . Because, on the current record, the priority of the challenged claims predates June 23, 2005, [the petitioner] has failed to establish that [the asserted patent] is prior art to the challenged claims."
Petition for Inter Partes Review by Globus Medical Inc., IPR2015-00099 (PTAB May 1, 2015, Order) (Weatherly, APJ)
Monday, May 4, 2015
Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., CBM2014-00020 (PTAB April 29, 2015, Order) (Tierney, APJ)
Friday, May 1, 2015
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al, 1-13-cv-03777 (NYSD April 28, 2015, Order) (Hellerstein, J.)