• 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
• 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
• Twilio Inc. v. Telesign CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 27, 2017 · CBM2016-00099 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the patent did not 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 particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’792 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 ’792 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. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’792 patent.” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented and particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’792 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 ’792 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 14

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,300,792

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.