• Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · PGR2021-00101 · APJ Garth D Baer · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied post-grant review of claims 1, 7, 9, 16, 22, and 24 because the patent is not eligible for PGR as a pre-AIA patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Act (“AIA”)5 apply only to AIA patents, which are patents that have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See AIA §§ 3(n)(1); 6(f)(2)(A). Pre-AIA patents—those with effective filing dates before March 16, 2013—are not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,951,632
• Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · PGR2021-00100 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied post-grant review of claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 because the patent is pre-AIA and ineligible for post-grant review.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. ELIGIBILITY FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW The post-grant review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”)4 apply only to AIA patents, which are patents that have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See AIA §§ 3(n)(1); 6(f)(2)(A). Pre-AIA patents—those with effective filing dates before March 16, 2013—are not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,951,632
• Microsoft Corporation v. Litl, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · IPR2021-01011 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims 1–36, and the Board’s rules bar institution on disclaimed claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied

    “November 22, 2021, after Petitioner filed its Petition, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming claims 1–36 of the ’957 patent. Ex. 2008. Under our rules, “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); see Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (explaining how Rule 42.107(e) operates in the case of a pre-institution disclaimer of all claims) (precedential). Because we cannot institute trial on disclaimed claims and Patent Owner has disclaimed all of the challenged claims, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–36. III. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to the challenged claims of the ʼ957 patent; and FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,577,957

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.