• MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. Buzzballz, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-01000 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the IPR petition was premature while the patent remained within its nine-month post-grant review window and the parallel PGR was instituted.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied

    “For AIA patents like the ’441 patent, a petition for inter partes review “shall be filed after the later of either (1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or (2) if a post-grant review is instituted . . . , the date of the termination of such post-grant review.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a). Here, the ’441 patent issued on March 19, 2024 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and PGR2024-00035 is instituted. Petitioner filed the instant Petition on June 7, 2024. As such, the instant Petition is premature because it was filed within nine months of the grant of the ’441 patent and before termination of PGR2024-00035. For this reason, we deny institution of this inter partes review.” slip op. at 3

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

    “For AIA patents like the ’441 patent, a petition for inter partes review “shall be filed after the later of either (1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or (2) if a post-grant review is instituted . . . , the date of the termination of such post-grant review.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a). Here, the ’441 patent issued on March 19, 2024 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and PGR2024-00035 is instituted. Petitioner filed the instant Petition on June 7, 2024. As such, the instant Petition is premature because it was filed within nine months of the grant of the ’441 patent and before termination of PGR2024-00035. For this reason, we deny institution of this inter partes review.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,932,441
• Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 26, 2019 · IPR2019-00032 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because § 315(a)(1) barred review after Petitioner filed and voluntarily dismissed a declaratory judgment action.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied

    “institution of an inter partes review because Petitioner previously filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of claims in the ’012 patent, notwithstanding Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice of that declaratory judgment action. Dec. 5–8. We explained that our conclusion was compelled by the Federal Circuit’s analysis in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc as to footnote 3). Dec. 6–8.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,155,012

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.