• CQG, Inc. / CQGT, LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2015 · CBM2015-00057 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1-40 of the ’304 patent and claims 1-56 of the ’132 patent because § 325(a)(1) barred the petitions.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “(1) POST–GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.—A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,766,304
• CQG, Inc. / CQGT, LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2015 · CBM2015-00058 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution of CBM review of claims 1-56 of the ’132 patent and claims 1-40 of the ’304 patent because Petitioner was barred under § 325(a)(1).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “the immediate continuation of the first action into the second action, including the legal positions taken by the parties, that was the dispositive factor for determining that the dismissal without prejudice of the first case did not have the effect as if the first case never existed. Apple, Case IPR2014-00319, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB July 31, 2014) (Paper 14). In rendering the original decision, the panel relied on Brennan v. Kulick, 407 F.3d 603 (3d Cir. 2005). Apple, Paper 12, slip op. at 6. In Brennan, the court explained that prior cases are treated as if they never existed after dismissal because “[a]n order merely dismissing a complaint without prejudice could result in a significant period of delay prior to the bringing of 7 a new action.” Brennan, 407 F.3d at 607. The court further explained that with a conditional dismissal, a prior case would be treated as if it existed because “[t]he conditions specified in the order prevent a plaintiff from indefinitely extending the limitations period.” Id. Treating a case dismissed without prejudice as if it never existed, therefore, depends on the circumstances surrounding the dismissal.” slip op. at 7

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,772,132

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.