- Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Mylan Laboratories Limited et al. v. Ucb Pharma GmbHNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01596 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 21–24 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish a reason to make the claimed modifications with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“art. For the purpose of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s undisputed contention that: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Ph.D. in chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, or a related field, and at least one year of industrial exposure to drug discovery, drug design, and synthesis. In lieu of an advanced degree, the individual may have additional years of industry experience, including, for example, in drug discovery, drug synthesis, and structure-activity work. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23); see Resp. 6. Based on our review of the ’650 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’650 patent and cited prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner submits that the “claims in the ʼ650 patent are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no claim terms require construction, which the Board also accepted for purposes of institution.” Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 6; Inst. Dec. 7). In our Institution Decision, we determined that “no claim term requires express construction.” Inst. Dec. 7. After reviewing the entire record developed during trial, we affirm our determination from the Institution Decision that no claim term requires express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Following our weighing of the experts’ testimony, we find that Dr. Roush’s testimony better addresses the issue at hand and we credit that testimony over Dr. Patterson’s testimony. Dr. Patterson opines generally that the “presence of two hydroxyl groups around the left most aromatic ring . . . would have created a product likely to have decreased oral bioavailability compared to tolterodine because of its hydrophilicity and thus lower than acceptable lipophilicity” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 112), and that it “would [have been] a matter of routine experimentation” to confirm that 5-HMT could have significantly less bioavailability than its parent, tolterodine” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 115). Dr. Patterson, however, did not perform any experiments to confirm 5-HMT’s oral bioavailability, and cites to no further evidence to support his opinions. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 92; compare Brynne (Ex. 1011) discussed supra § II.D.1. Dr. Roush, on the other hand, conducts an analysis of the compound under the “Rule of 5” to determine that “5-HMT does not meet a single factor, much less two, of the rule” thus teaching the skilled artisan “away from concluding that 5-HMT had an oral absorption problem.” Resp. 28–29 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 56–58, 87, 92). At oral hearing, Patent Owner restated that the analysis under the Rule of 5 indicates that 5-HMT was “not even close to being a problem . . . for all four of these properties, 5-HMT says there’s no red flags; there’s no problem,” and that “Dr. Patterson admitted in his deposition, 5-HMT does not violate the Rule of Five.” Tr. 67:35–68:3; 68:17–21; see Ex. 2020, 180:14–181:14. Regarding Petitioner’s reliance on the statement in Brynne that “[t]olterodine is tenfold more lipophilic than 5-HM[T], and consequently tolterodine penetrates membranes more rapidly,” Patent Owner does not appear to dispute the substance of that statement. Although such a statement illustrates a relative relationship between the lipophilicity of 5-HMT and tolterodine, it does not demonstrate that the lipophilicity of 5-HMT would have presented an absorption problem that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 5-HMT. Even if 5-HMT were considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be less lipophilic than tolterodine, and thereby less rapidly absorbed, the record lacks sufficient evidence regarding the actual properties of 5-HMT for us to conclude that 5-HMT’s lipophilicity would have presented a bioavailability problem.21 For these reasons, Petitioner’s assertion that 5-HMT “may have bioavailability concerns” that would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 5-HMT is unpersuasive. Reply 13.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“On the complete record before us, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner carries its burden of demonstrating that 5-HMT has a bioavailability problem that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify its structure. Regarding the lipophilicity profile of 5-HMT, Petitioner does not provide, or attempt to provide, any actual (as opposed to relative) data concerning the bioavailability of 5-HMT. Cf. supra § II.D.2 (Brynne comparing lipophilicity of tolterodine to lipophilicity of 5-HMT). Although data is not required, and although we do not find that absence of data alone to be fatal to Petitioner’s position on this issue, the absence of any data concerning the actual bioavailability of 5-HMT leaves Petitioner’s argument solely supported by expert testimony. We now turn to the contradictory statements of the parties’ experts. Following our weighing of the experts’ testimony, we find that Dr. Roush’s testimony better addresses the issue at hand and we credit that testimony over Dr. Patterson’s testimony. Dr. Patterson opines generally that the “presence of two hydroxyl groups around the left most aromatic ring . . . would have created a product likely to have decreased oral bioavailability compared to tolterodine because of its hydrophilicity and thus lower than acceptable lipophilicity” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 112), and that it “would [have been] a matter of routine experimentation” to confirm that 5-HMT could have significantly less bioavailability than its parent, tolterodine” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 115). Dr. Patterson, however, did not perform any experiments to confirm 5-HMT’s oral bioavailability, and cites to no further evidence to support his opinions. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 92; compare Brynne (Ex. 1011) discussed supra § II.D.1.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,858,650 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,858,650 - PTAB · Apr 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01469 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Gold Charm Limited and ordered claims 1 and 5 cancelled after Patent Owner abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner has requested to abandon the contest, which would be construed as a request for adverse judgment even apart from Patent Owner’s explicit request for adverse judgment. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of claims 1 and 5 of the ʼ163 patent are appropriate. Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,870,163 - Biomune Company v. Merial, University Of Saskatchewan, And The Queen’S University Of BelfastAdverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 30, 2015 · IPR2015-00254 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1–6 after Patent Owner abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), “[a]bandonment of the contest” is construed as a request for adverse judgment. Accordingly, we interpret Patent Owner’s Response as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, the entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of the claims is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,517,843 - Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited / Apotex, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AG And Mitsubishi Pharma Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00784 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Chiba and Aulton; the motion to amend with proposed claims 33–64 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“institute an inter partes review of claims 1–32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 B2 (“the ’283 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).1 On December 1, 2014, the Board instituted trial to review patentability of the challenged claims. Paper 11 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Apotex, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Apotex,” or, together with Torrent, “Petitioners”) filed a separate Petition also seeking to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–32 of the ’283 patent. IPR2015-00518, Paper 1 (“IPR-518 Pet.”). This second Petition was accompanied by a motion seeking joinder with the trial that had been instituted in IPR2014-00784. IPR2015-00518, Paper 2 (“IPR-518 Joinder Mot.”). On February 17, 2015, the Board instituted trial in IPR2015-00518 and joined the proceedings in IPR2014-00784 and IPR2015-00518. IPR2015-00518, Paper 8 (“IPR-518 Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“unexpired patent according to its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under that standard, absent any special definitions, we assign claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For this reason, we do not construe several terms for which constructions were proposed in the Petition but about which the parties do not disagree.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Where the prior art teaches the claimed invention, a claim is not rendered patentable by virtue of being motivated in the inventors’ minds by a newly-discovered advantage of the prior-art combination; allowing such a claim to stand “would remove from the public that which is in the public domain.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022 (CCPA 1979); see also Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”). Here, Patent Owners argue that the newly discovered low-dose instability of fingolimod when mixed with common excipients motivated the inventors’ choice of the allegedly less common mannitol as an excipient. PO Resp. 12–15 (citing Ex. 2043 ¶¶ 14–19, 22, 24–36). As explained above, though, it does not matter that the prior art failed to recognize this advantage of a fingolimod-mannitol combination. “[T]he motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the [patentee] to establish obviousness.” In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,324,283 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,324,283 - Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2015 · IPR2013-00560 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 47–48 are unpatentable as anticipated by Visual Basic, and claims 49–50 as obvious over Visual Basic and Jensen; claims 51–53 were not shown unpatentable, and claims 17–23 were terminated.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Enfish contends that our construction for “object identification number” is incomplete. PO Resp. 15. We evaluate Enfish’s contention below. Enfish also provides a proposed construction for “anchor,” recited in claims 21 and 51. PO Resp. 22. Because we determine that Microsoft has not met its burden with respect to these claims for other reasons, no construction of this term for the purposes of this Decision is necessary. We discern no reason, based on the complete record now before us, to change our constructions in the Decision to Institute of “logical table,” “object identification number,” and “attribute set.”” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“evidence, and the detailed claim analysis, which reads persuasively all elements of claim 47 onto the disclosure of Visual Basic. Pet. 33–46 (citing Ex. 1104, LR 162, 185, 280, 425, 484, 532, 558, PF 1, 3, 18, 37–39, 40, 47, 76, 80, PG 453, 471, 481, 482 ; Ex. 1119 ¶¶ 67–98). For example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses configuring memory according to a logical table, as recited in claim 47. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses storing data in a computer formatted as a table object, which is “a logical representation of a physical table.” Ex. 1104, LR 558. The table object comprises “records (rows) and fields (columns).” Id.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“2007 ¶ 231. In contrast to Dr. Jagadish’s statement, however, Jensen teaches an object-oriented application for managing information retrieved from a structured database, such as a relational database. Ex. 1106, Abstract. Enfish further contends that Microsoft does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the pointers of Jensen to the indexing structure in Visual Basic. PO Resp. 35. We, however, are persuaded that Microsoft has shown a sufficiently articulated reason with rational underpinning to support obviousness (Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1119 ¶¶ 387–404)). Microsoft, for example, states “[i]t was well known in the art at the time that indexes such as the index disclosed in [Visual Basic], maintain object identification numbers of the cell for locating data.” Pet. 49 (emphasis added). Microsoft continues, “Jensen discloses containing the address in a pointer, e.g., a physical memory address (i.e., OIDs).” Id. (citing Ex. 1106, 7:29–35). Dr. Hosking testifies “[i]t was well known in the art at the time that Index Objects locate data by maintaining object identification numbers in the internal pointers as disclosed in Jensen.” Ex. 1119 ¶ 403 (emphasis added). Dr. Hosking further testifies “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Jensen’s teaching of maintaining the OIDs in a pointer with [Visual Basic’s] disclosure of identifying the logical columns / rows with the OIDs.” Ex. 1119 ¶ 404. The predictable use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions renders the recited invention obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“invention, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, to accord substantial weight to objective evidence requires the finding of a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“success is relevant in the obviousness context only if there is proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.”). Enfish contends that the claimed invention received industry accolades, including praise from Microsoft, satisfied a long-felt need, resulted in success where others had failed, as well as commercial success. PO Resp. 42–47. Enfish points to features of claim 17, which Enfish contends are the features of the claimed invention that resulted in the objective indicia of success to which Enfish refers. Id. at 43–44. Claim 17 of the ’775 patent, however, is challenged on the basis that it is anticipated by Visual Basic. Secondary considerations do not weigh into determinations regarding anticipation. Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because we conclude that Microsoft has not shown that claims 51–53 of the ’775 patent are unpatentable for other reasons, the only claims that we need to evaluate are dependent claims 49 and 50 of the ’775 patent. Microsoft asserts that claims 49 and 50 are obvious over the combination of Visual Basic with a reference that teaches referencing objects through two-way pointers. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1106, 7:29–35). Enfish has not shown a nexus between any of the accolades or successes it says occurred and the use of two-way pointers.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,163,775 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,163,775 - Google, Inc v. Inventor Holdings, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · CBM2014-00003 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and entered judgment of unpatentability against claims 1-4, 9-11, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 65 based on Patent Owner’s concession.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Paper 33, “Req.”. Under section 42.73(b)(3), concession of unpatentability of the contested subject matter is construed as an adverse judgment. In its Request, Patent Owner concedes the unpatentability of and requests adverse judgment regarding claims 14, 911, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 65 of U.S. Patent No. 5,844,272. Req. 2. The conceded unpatentability addresses all the claims subject to this proceeding. Therefore, no other patent claims remain for trial in this covered business method review. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3) is hereby granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment of unpatentability is entered against claims 14, 911, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 65 of the U.S. Patent No. 5,884,272.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,884,272 - Google, Inc v. Inventor Holdings, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · CBM2014-00002 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and entered judgment of unpatentability against claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 23, 24, 32, and 33.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Paper 37, “Req.”. Under section 42.73(b)(3), concession of unpatentability of the contested subject matter is construed as an adverse judgment. In its Request, Patent Owner concedes the unpatentability of and requests adverse judgment regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 23, 24, 32, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 5,844,270. Req. 2. The conceded unpatentability addresses all the claims subject to this proceeding. Therefore, no other patent claims remain for trial in this covered business method review. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3) is hereby granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment of unpatentability is entered against claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 23, 24, 32, and 33 of the U.S. Patent No. 5,884,270.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,884,270 - PTAB · Jun 26, 2014 · IPR2014-00560 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2014-00560 without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The parties stated in their joint motion that they have settled their dispute and have reached agreement to terminate this inter partes review. Paper 10, 2. Patent Owner has not yet filed a preliminary response or a waiver under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107. We are persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate this proceeding is GRANTED and this proceeding is hereby terminated; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,592,555 - PTAB · May 2, 2014 · IPR2014-00229 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated the proceedings as to all parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Other
“The instant proceedings are in the preliminary stage. Patent Owner has filed preliminary responses in each of the instant proceedings.5 The Board, however, has not determined whether trial will be instituted for any of the requests for inter partes review. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” In the motions to terminate, the parties state that they have settled their dispute with respect to the patents involved in the proceedings, and have reached agreement to terminate these proceedings. Paper 9, 1. Furthermore, the joint motion indicates that the parties have agreed to dismiss Petitioner and other real parties-in-interest identified by 2 IPR2014-00229, Paper 9; IPR2014-00230, Paper 10, IPR2014-00231, Paper 9. 3 IPR2014-00229, Ex. 1047; IPR2014-00230, Ex. 1047, IPR2014-00231, Ex. 1047. 4 IPR2014-00229, Paper 10; IPR2014-00230, Paper 11, IPR2014-00231, Paper 10. 5 IPR2014-00229, Paper 7; IPR2014-00230, Paper 8; IPR2014-00231, Paper 7.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The Board generally expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and the early stage of these proceedings, we agree with the parties that terminating the instant proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to enter judgment6 without rendering a final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate these proceedings are granted, and that these proceedings are hereby terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner;” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,131,121 - PTAB · May 2, 2014 · IPR2014-00230 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motions to terminate the proceedings as to all parties and granted the requests to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
RulingsOther- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The Board generally expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and the early stage of these proceedings, we agree with the parties that terminating the instant proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to enter judgment6 without rendering a final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate these proceedings are granted, and that these proceedings are hereby terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner;” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,108,704
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.