• 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
• American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Signature Systems, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · CBM2015-00153 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–16 because those originally issued claims had been cancelled or amended during reexamination; it did not reach the merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We are persuaded that the particular facts of this proceeding counsel against institution. Our decision whether to institute a covered business method patent review must be based on the claims of the ’402 patent as it exists today. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Petitioner challenged original claims 1–16, which Patent Owner has either cancelled or amended during ex parte reexamination. See Ex. 3001. Original claims 1–16, as challenged by Petitioner, no longer exist, and any decision as to the patentability of original claims 1–16 we might reach in this proceeding would be moot and purely advisory. We do not see how the efficient administration of the Office, or the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding, would be secured by instituting a covered business method patent review in this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). In denying institution, we do not reach the merits of the unpatentability arguments in the Petition, and express no opinion on those arguments at this time. Furthermore, based on the current record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is not prejudiced as they may elect to file a new Petition directed to the amended claims.3” slip op. at 8

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,423,402

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.