`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