• Wolfspeed, Inc. v. The Trustees Of Purdue UniversityInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00854 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims in compliance with the statutory requirements.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “A disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) is “considered as part of the original patent” as of the date on which it is “recorded” in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”). 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). For a disclaimer to be “recorded” in the Office, the document filed by the patent owner must: (1) Be signed by the patentee, or an attorney or agent of record; (2) Identify the patent and complete claim or claims, or term being disclaimed. A disclaimer which is not a disclaimer of a complete claim or claims, or term will be refused recordation;” slip op. at 7

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,035,112
• Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. The Trustees Of Purdue UniversityInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00724 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims 2–5, 8, 9, and 13–16 in compliance with the statutory requirements.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied

    “Here, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1–16 of the ’112 patent, which includes the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 1; Ex. 2001. Based on our review of Exhibit 2001 and Office public records, we conclude that a disclaimer of claims 1–16 of the ’112 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) was filed with the Office as of September 29, 2021. Based on the information in the public record, we find that the disclaimer complies with the above-listed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Because all challenged claims have been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), no inter partes review is instituted in this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); General Electric Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (declining to institute inter partes review when all challenged claims were disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a)). Patent Owner acknowledges that we should deny institution on this threshold procedural ground. Prelim. Resp. 1.” slip op. at 7

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,035,112
• Sattler Tech Corporation v. Yaqi LyuInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2021 · PGR2021-00095 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR challenging the sole claim because Sattler had filed a civil action challenging that claim’s validity before filing the petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Sattler filed this Petition for post grant review of the ’645 patent on June 9, 2021. Approximately two months prior, on April 15, 2021, Sattler filed the Virginia lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the claim of the ’645 patent is invalid based on prior art sales and activity prior to October 18, 2019. See Ex. 3002; see also Ex. 3001 ¶¶ 15, 25(a). Because the Board may not institute a post grant review of a challenged patent when the petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date on which the petition for review is filed, we deny the Petition in all respects. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDenied

    “Sattler filed this Petition for post grant review of the ’645 patent on June 9, 2021. Approximately two months prior, on April 15, 2021, Sattler filed the Virginia lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the claim of the ’645 patent is invalid based on prior art sales and activity prior to October 18, 2019. See Ex. 3002; see also Ex. 3001 ¶¶ 15, 25(a). Because the Board may not institute a post grant review of a challenged patent when the petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date on which the petition for review is filed, we deny the Petition in all respects. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial

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.