Blog

AOL Inc. and Cloudera, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a request for rehearing titled “Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing by an Expanded Panel Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(C)-(D).” Paper 11 (“Req. for Reh’g”). In that request, Petitioner asserts that a dissent from the denial of institution strongly favors rehearing, and an expanded panel. Req. for Reh’g 2. Petitioner also argues the panel misapprehended that Spawn’s1 entire premise is to “provide a solution” for al […]

In a trio of cases over the past year, the Board has denied institution or terminated IPR proceedings because it found that the challenged claims were indefinite and, therefore, could not be construed. Although that result means no IPR finding of unpatentability, it does leave in its wake a very probative–but not binding–finding of indefiniteness by the highest administrative law body at the USPTO. In each case the indefiniteness issue arose from the interpretation of means […]

Petitioner, Conopco dba Unilever (“Unilever”), requests a rehearing of the Decision on Institution (Paper 17, “Dec.”) by an expanded panel that includes the Chief Administrative Patent Judge (“Chief Judge”).1 Paper 19, “Rehearing Req.” Specifically, Unilever seeks rehearing of our decision declining to institute an inter partes review of claims 13–14, 16, 20–22, 24–25, 27, 31, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,974,569 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’569 patent”). Paper 17. ipr2014_0050 […]