• Ipr2018-00707Other
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00707 · IPR · Rehearing

  Unable to determine the rehearing decision because the only provided unit is blank.

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,459,023
• Pgr2018-00055Other
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2019 · PGR2018-00055 · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board determined all challenged claims unpatentable and denied the Patent Owner’s motion to amend.

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,687,744
• Ipr2017-02143Other
  PTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02143 · IPR · Final written decision

  No decision text is present in the supplied unit; the outcome and affected claims cannot be determined.

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,480,569
• Andersen CorporationOther
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2019 · DER2017-00007 · APJ Justin T Arbes · DER · Final written decision

  Andersen did not prove derivation of any invention in claims 1–22 because it did not show that Oquendo communicated the claimed stop spaced away from the corners.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “2. Burden of Proof To prevail in an instituted derivation proceeding, the petitioner must demonstrate that “an inventor named in the earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 135(b). Unlike the statutory provisions governing inter partes review and post-grant review, which specify that a petitioner must prove unpatentability of a claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” the statutory provision for derivation proceedings does not set forth an evidentiary standard for proving derivation. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 135, 316(e), 326(e). Our rules, however, provide that “[a] derivation proceeding is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part [i.e., 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1–42.80],” 37 C.F.R. § 42.400(a), and “[t]he default evidentiary standard [for trial proceedings] is a preponderance of the evidence,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).5 We apply that standard for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “construed. Andersen argues in its Petition that the term “stop” in all of the claims should be interpreted to mean “[a] physical abutment that prohibits movement of the adjoining structure beyond a predetermined location.” Pet. 9. In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time, we preliminarily agreed with and adopted that interpretation, and concluded that no other terms required interpretation. Dec. on Inst. 17–18.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “all of the evidence of alleged communication. Taking into account the parties’ arguments and the full record in this proceeding, we conclude that Andersen has not demonstrated that Mr. Oquendo communicated to a named inventor of the ’953 patent a conception of the complete invention recited in claim 1. Specifically, Andersen has not shown that Mr. Oquendo communicated, as part of his spacer frame design, a stop spaced away from the corners. Mr. Oquendo’s testimony regarding such an alleged communication is not corroborated by evidence in the record for all of the reasons explained above. Andersen has not proven derivation of the invention recited in claim 1 by a preponderance of the evidence. E. Alleged Derivation of the Inventions Recited in Claims 2–22 Andersen asserts that Mr. Oquendo conceived of the subject matter of” slip op. at 64

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 9,428,953

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.