Source: https://patentdevelopments.com/cultec-inc-v-stormtech-llc-case-ipr2017-00777-august-22-2017-paper-7/
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 19:24:56
Document Index: 666781235

Matched Legal Cases: ['§103', '§103', '§103', '§103', '§103', '§ 1']

Cultec, Inc. v. StormTech LLC, Case IPR2017-00777 (August 22, 2017) (Paper 7) | Decisions in AIA Proceedings
Prior art and arguments presented previously by third parties / Redundancy
Cultec, Inc. v. StormTech LLC, Case IPR2017-00777 (August 22, 2017) (Paper 7)
by Gina Cornelio & Clint Conner	· August 22, 2017
Click Here For Copy of Decision
The Board has broad discretion to deny institution to the extent that an IPR petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office (such as in the context of the original prosecution of the patent at issue).
Summary (Informative):
Petitioner Cultec, Inc. (“Cultec”) filed a petition challenging all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,255,394 (“the ’394 patent”) based on the following grounds of unpatentability:
Ground Reference(s) Claim(s)
§103 Cobb 1-20
§103 Cobb and Fouss 1-20
§103 Cobb and Ellis 1-20
§103 Cobb, Fouss, and Ellis 1-20
§103 Cobb and November 8
The Board declined to institute IPR based on its conclusion that the same or substantially prior art or arguments were previously presented to, and considered by, the Office as part of a third party submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.2907 (“Submission”) during prosecution of the ’394 patent.
The Submission presented Cobb and Fouss to the Office. The Submission included significant argument relating to Cobb, including a claim chart. The Submission also incorporated by reference conclusions that the Office had made about Cobb in an office action issued in a related application (a continuation of the same parent application). The same examiner handled the related application and the application that matured into the ’394 patent. The Submission also asserted that “[a]dditional relevant disclosures are found in Fouss” and other prior art.
The Board found that the Examiner considered Cobb, even though the Examiner did not expressly apply Cobb during prosecution of the ’394 patent, considering the detailed treatment of Cobb in the Submission as well as the Examiner’s signature indicating that “all documents listed above have been considered.” The Board also noted that the Examiner cited and applied Fouss throughout prosecution of the ’394 patent.
Furthermore, the Board concluded that the relevant disclosure of the other prior art cited in Cultec’s petition – Ellis and November – was substantially the same vis-à-vis the challenged claims as prior art already considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’394 patent.
View all posts by Gina Cornelio →
Clint’s practice focuses on intellectual property with an emphasis on patent litigation, inter partes reviews, and patent enforcement strategies. Although he has remained focused on U.S. intellectual property law throughout his career, he brings an international perspective, having spent nearly five years representing companies in U.S. patent litigation while living and working in Tokyo. Before attending law school, Clint was an engineer for three years with Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs (now Alcatel-Lucent).
View all posts by Clint Conner →
Next story General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357 thru -01361 (Sept. 9, 2017) (Paper No. 19)
Previous story Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case IPR2017-00739 (July 27, 2017) (Paper 16)
Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01587 (Dec. 15, 2017) (Paper 8)
PRISM Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp., Case IPR2014-00315 (July 8, 2014) (Paper 14)
Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., Case CBM2016-00075 (Dec. 15, 2016) (Paper 16)
Decisions in AIA Proceedings © 2020. All Rights Reserved.