PTAB Decisions Denying Institution of IPR and CBM Review Not Excluded From Evidence

The court denied defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from presenting evidence of the PTAB's denial of defendants' petitions for inter partes and CBM review. "Defendants argue that [the PTAB's decisions denying institution of IPR and CBM review of a patent-in-suit] is irrelevant and highly prejudicial to the jury’s determination. . . .[U]nlike the situation in Interdigital Comm., Inc. v. Nokia, Corp., 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the petition for Inter Partes Review of the [patent-in-suit]] was instituted by [a defendant] and the PTAB expressly concluded in its decision 'Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the un-patentability of any of the challenged claims.'. . . The Court can and will instruct the jury on the appropriate law to apply to this case and can, if requested, further instruct the jury that different standards apply to these various proceedings (i.e., the PTAB’s decision denying Defendants’ petition for Inter Partes Review . . . and the PTAB’s decision denying Covered Business Method Patent Review with respect to [a patent-in-suit])."

Stoneeagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc. et al, 8-13-cv-02240 (FLMD June 19, 2015, Order) (Covington, J.)