Trial@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 79
`
`
`
`
` Entered: April 1, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Liberty’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 79
`
`
`
`
` Entered: April 1, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Liberty’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”) requests rehearing of the
`
`final written decision (Paper 68), holding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358
`
`(“the ’358 patent”) unpatentable. Paper 73 (“Req.”). Progressive Casualty
`
`Insurance Company (“Progressive”) filed an opposition to Liberty’s request for
`
`rehearing. Paper 77 (“Opp.”).1
`
`A request for rehearing must be in the form of a motion. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.20(a). The request must identify specifically all matters the party believes the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`addressed previously. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For the reasons stated below,
`
`Liberty’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`On March, 28, 2013, we instituted the instant covered business method
`
`patent review as to claims 1-20 of the ’358 patent. Paper 10. We also instituted a
`
`review in CBM2012-00003 with respect to claims 1-20 of the ’358 patent. Liberty
`
`Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance, Co., CBM2012-00003,
`
`Paper 15. In response to the parties’ joint request, we synchronized the trial
`
`schedules for both reviews, as they involved the same patent and parties. Papers
`
`16-17; CBM2012-00003, Papers 29-30. During the trials, the parties also merged
`
`and conducted discovery for both proceedings at the same time (see, e.g., Paper 36,
`
`Ex. 2029; CBM2012-00003, Paper 25, Ex. 2016) and conducted conference calls
`
`
`
`1 We authorized each party to file an opposition to the opposing party’s request for
`rehearing. Paper 75.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`with the Board for both proceedings concurrently (see, e.g., Papers 37-38;
`
`CBM2012-00003, Papers 53-54). The oral hearings for both reviews were merged
`
`and conducted at the same time, and the transcript for the oral hearing was made
`
`useable for both reviews. Papers 47, 65; CBM2012-00003, Papers 62, 76. We in
`
`effect consolidated the reviews, at the request of the parties, except that papers and
`
`exhibits are stored in separate files for case management. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`In a prior Order, we stated: “The parties can expect that the final written
`
`decision for the two cases will issue on the same date, as that has been the plan
`
`according to the formal schedule.” Paper 64, p. 2. The parties did not object to the
`
`advance notice to the parties that the final written decisions for the two cases will
`
`issue on the same date. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a), we issued the final written
`
`decision in the instant proceeding and the final written decision for CBM2012-
`
`00003 on February 11, 2014, concurrently. Paper 68 at 2 (“A final written decision
`
`in Case CBM2012-00003 is entered concurrently with this decision.”); CBM2012-
`
`00003, Paper 78 at 3 (“A final written decision in CBM2013-00009 is entered
`
`concurrently with this decision.”).
`
`In its request for rehearing, Liberty seeks the following relief:
`
`In the event that this Board denies Progressive’s rehearing
`request in Case CBM2013-00009, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`the Board deny Petitioner’s rehearing requests concurrently for both
`CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009. In the event that the Board
`grants rehearing in Case CBM2013-00009, Petitioner requests that the
`Board issue a single combined final decision for both CBM2012-
`00003 and CBM2013-00009, effective February 11, 2014.
`
`Req. 2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`
`
`Liberty filed a similar request for rehearing in CBM2012-00003 (Paper 81).
`
`In its opposition filed in the instant proceeding, Progressive counters that Liberty’s
`
`request is not a proper rehearing request because “it seeks relief contingent on how
`
`the Board will in the future rule on the rehearing request filed by [Progressive],
`
`Paper 71.” Opp. 1 (emphasis omitted); see also Opp. 2-3.
`
`We have reviewed Liberty’s request for rehearing, as well as Progressive’s
`
`arguments submitted in its opposition. We agree with Progressive that Liberty has
`
`not shown that the final written decision misapprehended or overlooked any
`
`matter. Liberty’s request that we should issue a single combined final written
`
`decision is moot because we deny Progressive’s request for rehearing (see Paper
`
`78). Liberty’s request that we should issue the decisions denying its requests for
`
`both proceedings concurrently also is not necessary in light of the previous Order
`
`granting the parties’ joint request to synchronize the trial schedules for both
`
`proceedings (Papers 16-17; CBM2012-00003, Papers 29-30). Consistent with that
`
`Order, we hereby issue the instant decision on Liberty’s request for rehearing and
`
`the decision on Liberty’s request for rehearing filed in CBM2012-00003
`
`concurrently.
`
`Liberty has not shown that the final written decision misapprehended or
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`overlooked any matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`Liberty’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`James R. Myers
`Nicole M. Jantzi
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`james.myers@ropesgray.com
`nicole.jantzi@ropesgray.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Calvin P. Griffith
`James L. Wamsley, III
`John V. Biernacki
`JONES DAY
`cpgriffith@jonesday.com
`jlwamsleyiii@jonesday.com
`
`5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
