• Terremark North America LLC / Verizon Business Network Services Inc. et al. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01486 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition was filed outside § 315(b)’s one-year time bar.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” (emphasis added). 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC, Verizon Business Network Services Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc., iControl Networks Inc., CoxCom, LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Corporate Resources Group, LLC, and Verizon Data Services LLC are real-parties-in-interest. Pet. 1–2. Petitioner also acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., and Time Warner Cable Inc. were served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. Exs. 2003, 2005. Inter partes review is precluded for at least the reasons that Terremark North America LLC and Verizon Communications Inc. are real parties-in-interest and were served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” (emphasis added). 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC, Verizon Business Network Services Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc., iControl Networks Inc., CoxCom, LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Corporate Resources Group, LLC, and Verizon Data Services LLC are real-parties-in-interest. Pet. 1–2. Petitioner also acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., and Time Warner Cable Inc. were served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. Exs. 2003, 2005. Inter partes review is precluded for at least the reasons that Terremark North America LLC and Verizon Communications Inc. are real parties-in-interest and were served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). CoxCom, LLC, is precluded additionally from filing the Petition for other reasons. In PNC Bank, N.A. et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case CBM2014-00041 (PTAB June 3, 2014) (Paper No. 19), the Board addressed a Motion of Adverse Judgement against PNC. In PNC Bank, PNC, one of three petitioners, violated 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) by filing the petition for covered business method review (“CBM”) after it had filed a district court suit challenging the validity of the patent challenged in the CBM. In an attempt to eliminate the statutory bar against PNC, PNC moved for entry of adverse judgment against it in the CBM proceeding and 14 contended that other petitioners could proceed with the petition without further involvement by PNC. The Board denied institution on the CBM petition and dismissed the motion because PNC already had exerted substantial control over the case, and granting PNC’s request for adverse judgment would not obviate the control that PNC already had exerted. Id., slip op. at 4. Similarly, Terremark North America LLC and the named Verizon entities in this case already have exerted substantial control over the case by participating in filing the Petition, appointing counsel, etc. The presence of CoxCom, LLC, therefore, does not remove the statutory bar. slip op. at 14

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,549,130
• Terremark North America LLC / Verizon Business Network Services Inc. et al. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01482 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition was filed outside the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” (emphasis added). 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Corporate Resources Group, LLC, and Verizon Data Services LLC are real-parties-in-interest. Pet. 1–2. Petitioner also acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC and Verizon Communications Inc. were 14 served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. Ex. 2003. Inter partes review is precluded for at least the reasons that Terremark North America LLC and Verizon Communications Inc. are real parties-in-interest and were served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). slip op. at 14

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). Moreover, a petition is only accorded a filing date once (1) a petition has been filed; (2) payment has been made; and (3) the complete petition is served on the patent owner. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a). The Board has discretion to waive non-statutory requirements per 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). In addition, our rules permit a party to file a motion to correct a “clerical or typographical mistake.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c). The burden of proof rests with the moving party, which is, in this case, Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c); Motion 2.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Corporate Resources Group, LLC, and Verizon Data Services LLC are real-parties-in-interest. Pet. 1–2. Petitioner also acknowledges that Terremark North America LLC and Verizon Communications Inc. were 14 served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. Ex. 2003. Inter partes review is precluded for at least the reasons that Terremark North America LLC and Verizon Communications Inc. are real parties-in-interest and were served with a complaint on June 23, 2014. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). CoxCom, LLC, is precluded additionally from filing the Petition for other reasons. In PNC Bank, N.A. et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case CBM2014-00041 (PTAB June 3, 2014) (Paper No. 19), the Board addressed a Motion of Adverse Judgement against PNC. In PNC Bank, PNC, one of three petitioners, violated 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) by filing the petition for covered business method review (“CBM”) after it had filed a district court suit challenging the validity of the patent challenged in the CBM. In an attempt to eliminate the statutory bar against PNC, PNC moved for entry of adverse judgment against it in the CBM proceeding and contended that other petitioners could proceed with the petition without further involvement by PNC. The Board denied institution on the CBM petition and dismissed the motion because PNC already had exerted substantial control over the case, and granting PNC’s request for adverse judgment would not obviate the control that PNC already had exerted. Id., slip op. at 4. Similarly, Terremark North America LLC and the named Verizon entities in this case already have exerted substantial control over the case by participating in filing the Petition, appointing counsel, etc. The presence of CoxCom, LLC, therefore, does not remove the statutory bar.” slip op. at 14

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,397,363
• Terremark North America LLC / Verizon Communications Inc. et al. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01485 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition was filed after the one-year time bar in § 315(b).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). Moreover, a petition is only accorded a filing date once (1) a petition has been filed; (2) payment has been made; and (3) the complete petition is served on the patent owner. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a). The Board has discretion to waive non-statutory requirements per 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). In addition, our rules permit a party to file a motion to correct a “clerical or typographical mistake.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c). The burden of proof rests with the moving party, which is, in this case, Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c); Motion 2.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied time barDecided for patent owner

    “the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” (emphasis added). 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” slip op. at 13

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,397,363
• Terremark North America LLC / Verizon Business Network Services Inc. et al. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01484 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition was filed, served, and paid one day after the § 315(b) one-year time bar.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). Moreover, a petition is only accorded a filing date once: (1) a petition has been filed; (2) payment has been made; and (3) the complete petition is served on the patent owner. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a). The Board has discretion to waive non-statutory requirements per 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). In addition, our rules permit a party to file a motion to correct a “clerical or typographical mistake.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c). The burden of proof rests with the moving party, which is, in this case, Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c); Motion 2. It is undisputed that at least two of the petitioning parties were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’010 patent on June 23, 2014. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1–4; Exs. 2002–2005. On June 23, 2015, Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) by not paying the required fee and failing to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) by not filing and serving the Petition and its supporting evidence. Motion 2–6 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1–13; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–12). On June 24, 2015, one day after the one year statutory deadline, Petitioner completed filing of the Petitions at issue. Id. at 5–6 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1– 13; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–12).” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,277,010
• Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00134 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied the petitions because Acxiom did not establish standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied

    “authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”). As Patent Owner points out, “the Petition does not supply the demand for indemnification, Acxiom’s response, or any correspondence regarding indemnification.” Prelim. Resp. 4; cf. General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., Case IPR2014-01380, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Paper 34) (an agreement to indemnify as to a specific lawsuit was sufficient evidence of privity). Similarly, the Williamson Declaration does not provide any details as to the purported demand for indemnity nor does it inform us of Petitioner’s view as to the merits of any such demand for indemnity. Nor does Mr. Williamson testify as to whether the Agreement was in force at the relevant time. Thus, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it has an obligation to indemnify Gerber or any other entity that may have been sued for infringement.3 Also, as discussed 3 AAA also is listed as a real party-in-interest. Pet. 3. Petitioner, however, provides no argument or evidence as to why it believes that AAA is a real party-ininterest of Petitioner. Thus, we have no basis to ascertain whether Petitioner may above, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show what services, if any, Petitioner provides to Gerber. Therefore, Petitioner does not provide us with evidence sufficient to show that Gerber is a real party-in-interest of Petitioner. Also, the heavily redacted Agreement does not provide us with sufficient evidence regarding the relationship between these entities to show that Gerber is a privy of Petitioner sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument for standing. Thus, we do not have sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner has proper standing to bring this Petition. Therefore, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute a covered business method review of the challenged claims. See Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,709 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Response to Comment 102) (“Facially improper standing is a basis for denying the petition without proceeding to the merits of the decision.”).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits base its standing on its relationship with AAA. See Acxiom Corp. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLC, Case CBM2015-00068, slip. op at 4–6 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2015) (Paper 23). 1128 and 1129 to be UNSEALED forty-five (45) days after the entry date of this decision.” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,234,184
• Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00137 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied the petitions because Acxiom did not establish standing to seek covered business method review; it did not reach the merits of the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDenied

    “authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6

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

    “their real parties-in-interest or privies that have been sued or charged with infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302. Of key importance in this case is the requirement that “a person may not file a petition for a transitional proceeding with respect to a covered business method patent unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.” AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) (emphases added); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). Regarding this requirement, Petitioner does not allege that it has been charged with or sued for infringement, but instead contends that its” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,890,366
• Acxiom And Gerber v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00139 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not show it had standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied

    “authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”). As Patent Owner points out, “the Petition does not supply the demand for indemnification, Acxiom’s response, or any correspondence regarding indemnification.” Prelim. Resp. 4; cf. General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., Case IPR2014-01380, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Paper 34) (an agreement to indemnify as to a specific lawsuit was sufficient evidence of privity). Similarly, the Williamson Declaration does not provide any details as to the purported demand for indemnity nor does it inform us of Petitioner’s view as to the merits of any such demand for indemnity. Nor does Mr. Williamson testify as to whether the Agreement was in force at the relevant time. Thus, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it has an obligation to indemnify Gerber or any other entity that may have been sued for infringement.3 Also, as discussed” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,860,744
• Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00138 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not establish standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied

    “authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”). As Patent Owner points out, “the Petition does not supply the demand for indemnification, Acxiom’s response, or any correspondence regarding indemnification.” Prelim. Resp. 4; cf. General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., Case IPR2014-01380, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Paper 34) (an agreement to indemnify as to a specific lawsuit was sufficient evidence of privity). Similarly, the Williamson Declaration does not provide any details as to the purported demand for indemnity nor does it inform us of Petitioner’s view as to the merits of any such demand for indemnity. Nor does Mr. Williamson testify as to whether the Agreement was in force at the relevant time. Thus, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it has an obligation to indemnify Gerber or any other entity that may have been sued for infringement.3 Also, as discussed” slip op. at 5

  • ExcludeDenied

    “Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits base its standing on its relationship with AAA. See Acxiom Corp. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLC, Case CBM2015-00068, slip. op at 4–6 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2015) (Paper 23). 1128 and 1129 to be UNSEALED forty-five (45) days after the entry date of this decision.” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,738,435
• Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00136 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not establish standing to seek covered business method review, failing to show it was a real party-in-interest or privy of a sued entity.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied

    “authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,856,375
• Acxiom Corporation / Gerber Life Insurance Company et al. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00135 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not show that Gerber was its real party in interest or privy, leaving Acxiom without CBM standing.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied

    “authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,999,938

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.