• David’S Bridal, Inc. v. Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jun 15, 2017 · PGR2016-00041 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted to consider David’s Bridal’s acquiescence argument but otherwise denied; institution of review of the patent’s sole claim remained denied.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. The requirements are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Petitioner argues that the Board: (1) “misapprehended and overlooked” slip op. at 2

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

    “SUMMARY Petitioner, David’s Bridal, Inc., requests rehearing of the Board’s decision (Paper 11) (“Institution Decision”), entered February 22, 2017, denying institution of inter partes review of the sole claim of U.S. Patent D744,723 (Ex. 1002) (“the ’723 patent”). Paper 12 (“Reh’g Req.”). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request is granted to the extent that we address Petitioner’s “acquiescence argument,” but denied in all other respects.” slip op. at 2

  None

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.