`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: June 25, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC. AND YELP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,101,536
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON,
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 2-14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,536 (“the ’536 Patent”)
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Papers 1, 8 (“Petition”). Petitioner also moves
`
`for joinder with Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence LLC, IPR2014-00086 (“the
`
`Apple IPR”). Paper 4. Motion For Joinder. For the reasons discussed below, we
`
`institute a trial in this proceeding and in a separate order, grant Petitioner’s Motion
`
`For Joinder.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a) which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`On April 25, 2014, in the Apple IPR, we instituted a trial on Apple Inc.’s
`
`challenge to claims 2-12, 14 and 16 of the ’536 Patent as anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) by Gibbs. Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC,
`
`IPR20140-00086, Paper 8, Decision to Institute. We did not institute trial on
`
`Apple Inc.’s challenge to claim 13. Id. Apple did not present any other challenges
`
`in IPR2014-00086.
`
`On June 3, 2014, we conducted a teleconference with counsel for Petitioner
`
`and Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC. (“Patent Owner”). During that
`
`teleconference, Petitioner’s counsel confirmed that its challenges to claims 2-12,
`
`14 and 16 of the ’536 Patent in this proceeding are the same as those presented in
`
`the Apple IPR on which we instituted a trial. Petitioner’s counsel also agreed to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`withdraw its challenge to claim 13 on which we did not institute a trial in the
`
`Apple IPR.
`
`In view of the identity of the challenges, we incorporate by reference our
`
`decision instituting a trial in IPR2014-00086 and grant the instant Petition on the
`
`same grounds as those on which we instituted IPR2014-00086. We do not
`
`authorize inter partes review on any other grounds. In a separate decision, entered
`
`today, we also grant Petitioner’s Motion For Joinder.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is
`
`hereby instituted for claims 2-12, 14, and 16 of the ’536 patent on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Claims 2-12, 14, and 16 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`
`Gibbs;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in the Petition are
`
`denied;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial on the grounds of
`
`unpatentability authorized above.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Vaibhav P. Kadaba
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Anthony Patek
`Todd Kennedy
`Gutride Safier LLP
`pto@gutridesafier.com
`todd@gutridesafier.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
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
