In a recent Order, the Board authorized patent owner, Motion Games, LLC, to file a motion to terminate the proceedings because petitioner, Nintendo of America, Inc, allegedly failed to list all real parties-in-interest in three inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions.
35 USC 312(a)(2) requires a petitioner to identify all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”) in an inter partes review proceeding. In Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Motion Games LLC. (IPR2014-00164-66), Nintendo filed three IPRs against three different patents on November 19, 2013. The three patents are concurrently being asserted against Nintendo in a district court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, in Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co., LTD; Nintendo of America Inc.; Retro Studios, Inc.; Rent-A-Center, Inc.; and Gamestop Corp. (Case No. 6:12-cv-878) (E.D. TX). In the district court litigation, Nintendo of America, Inc., along with Nintendo Co., LTD, Retro Studios, Inc., Rent-A-Center, Inc., and Gamestop Corp. are named defendants. In the IPRs, Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. are the only named real parties-in-interest.
Ariosa Diagnostics v. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. (IPR2013-00308, Paper No. 40, November 19, 2014)
In a recent inter partes review (IPR), the Patent and Trial Appeals Board (PTAB) found that while only some of the grounds of unpatentability were sufficient to meet the “preponderance of the evidence standard” for determining claims unpatentable, all of the claims reviewed were found to be unpatentable. In its decision, the PTAB construed multiple claim terms using the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) before determining that all of the claims were unpatentable as being either anticipated or obvious in view of the cited references. Ariosa at 37.
SDI Technologies, Inc. filed an inter partes reviews (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,364,295 (IPR2013-00465). IPR2013-00465 is one of a few IPRs filed by SDI against this family of patents. U.S. Patent No. 8,364,295 (“the ‘295 patent”) is owned by Bose Corp. and relates to an audio system for reproducing sound from computer files and computer network radio stations, such as the Bose Wave® radio shown above.
Succeed where others fail: PTAB reaches a different conclusion on the same prior art in different proceedings
On November 21, 2014, the PTAB denied Mitsubishi’s petition for a rehearing of the board’s decision denying institution of an inter partes review against some claims of Celgard’s U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586 (“‘586 Patent”) directed to a lithium battery. Specifically, in support of its IPR petition, Mitsubishi provided an expert report from Kuzhikalail Abraham who argued that the Tojo reference invalidated some of the claims in the ‘586 patent. The board, however, denied to institute the IPR on the basis that Mitsubishi failed to show that Tojo “blocks dendrite growth” in the battery as required by the ‘586 Patent.