• Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · CBM2016-00101 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because the patent was not shown to qualify as a covered business method patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented and the particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’080 patent claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. Therefore, the ’080 patent does not qualify as a “covered business method patent” under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA, and we do not institute a covered business method patent review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,739,080
• Alarm.Com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2016 · IPR2015-02008 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of inter partes review because the patent owner statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims, 19–21.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “a preliminary response filed in response to a petition. Of particular importance to the circumstances presented here is sub-section (e), which provides that “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (emphasis added). As we explained above, Vivint filed a Preliminary Response along with a statutory disclaimer that explicitly disclaims all of the claims challenged in this Preliminary Proceeding. Ex. 2001. We have reviewed this statutory disclaimer, and we are satisfied that it was filed under § 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a). Accordingly, because Vivint has disclaimed all of the claims challenged in this proceeding, no inter partes review may be instituted. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,924,727

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.