• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2024-00424 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of the challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the lower-ranked petition did not justify a second set of petitions.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “large number of claims alone is not sufficient to justify the filing of the second set of petitions when the first set already covers all 152 claims of the ʼ260 patent. We therefore turn to Petitioner’s reasons for why it filed the second set of petitions. In this regard, Petitioner identifies three primary “[m]aterial differences between the petition pairs.” Paper 3, 2–5. The first is that the second set of petitions relies on a different set of references, based on Madhavan, rather than Baig. Id. at 2. The second material difference relates to possible priority date issues, and the third relates to possible claim construction issues. Id. We determine that none of these “material differences” are sufficient to justify filing the second set of petitions, including this petition. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) 59, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“[O]ne petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. . . . In addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases. . . . The Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will arise where three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect to a particular patent will be appropriate.”).” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “IPR2024-00421 and IPR2024-00422, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review in this proceeding. IV. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied and inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’260 patent is not instituted.” slip op. at 11

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2024-00423 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of inter partes review because Petitioner did not justify its lower-ranked second set of petitions challenging claims already covered by higher-ranked petitions.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “We determine that none of these “material differences” are sufficient to justify filing the second set of petitions, including this Petition. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) 59, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“[O]ne petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. . . . In addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast” slip op. at 8

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.