• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
25 results

Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.

Docket PGR2018-00037, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 27, 2018)
Amanda Wieker, Lynne Browne, Michael Kim, presiding
Case TypePost Grant Review
Patent
9662573
Patent Owner GREE, Inc.
Petitioner Supercell Oy
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

9 Refund Approval: Notice of Refund

Document PGR2018-00037, No. 9 Refund Approval - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2018)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on February 27, 2018, in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $22,000.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

7 Institution Decision: Denying Institution of Post Grant Review35 USC sec 324a

Document PGR2018-00037, No. 7 Institution Decision - Denying Institution of Post Grant Review35 USC sec 324a (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)
Relevant to gaming technologies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that claims “directed to rules for conducting a wagering game” are comparable to the fundamental economic practices found to be abstract in Alice.
Relevant Law Whether the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been satisfied “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Petitioner provides no independent basis to determine that claims 1–11 are indefinite, aside from its arguments made with respect to the sufficiency of the written description, which we found unpersuasive, and which are directed to different statutory requirements.
Moreover, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the claims, read in light of the specification by a person of ordinary skill in the art, are not sufficiently clear and precise to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
“‘On the one hand, there are the interests in conserving the resources of the Office and granting patent owners repose on issues and prior art that have been considered previously.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, Case IPR2016- 01876, slip op.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Accord Filing Date

Document PGR2018-00037, No. 3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)
For more information, please consult the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.
The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause.
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60606 Joseph E. Palys PAUL HASTINGS LLP 875 15TH street NW Washington, DC 20008
If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, Case PGR2018-00037 Patent No. 9,662,573 mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

1 Petition: Petition for Post Grant Review of US Patent 9,662,573

Document PGR2018-00037, No. 1 Petition - Petition for Post Grant Review of US Patent 9,662,573 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)
Instead, the asserted claims must “describe[] Patent No. 9,662,573 — Petition for Post Grant Review how [their] particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of” accomplishing the abstract ideas identified in step one of the Alice framework.
Under Berkheimer, a genuine issue of material fact exists only if the claims include limitations that incorporate the stated improvement to computer functionality described in the specification.
On November 2, 2016, examiners were given updated guidance for applying Section 101 in light of the recent Federal Circuit decisions, McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Federal Circuit expanded on this point in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017), a case in which patentable subject matter was found due to an “unconventional” arrangement of (conventional) sensors that provided a benefit of reducing errors in an inertial system that tracks an object on a moving platform.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petition for Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,662,573 and accompanying Exhibits 1001-1006 were served on February 27, 2018 in their entirety by Federal Express – Next Day Delivery upon the following: DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Refund Request: Petitioner Supercell Oys Request for Refund of Post Grant Review of Post Institution Fees Pursuant to 37 CFR Section 4215b

Document PGR2018-00037, No. 8 Refund Request - Petitioner Supercell Oys Request for Refund of Post Grant Review of Post Institution Fees Pursuant to 37 CFR Section 4215b (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)
Request for Refund of Post Grant Review Post-Institution Fees Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy By: JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
Request for Refund of Post Grant Review Post-Institution Fees
On September 4, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued a decision (Paper No. 7) denying institution of post-grant review on all challenged claims.
Request for Refund of Post Grant Review Post-Institution Fees
Request for Refund of Post Grant Review Post-Institution Fees
cite Cite Document
Analyze

6 Preliminary Response: Patent Owner Preliminary Response

Document PGR2018-00037, No. 6 Preliminary Response - Patent Owner Preliminary Response (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

5 Power of Attorney: Power of Attorney

Document PGR2018-00037, No. 5 Power of Attorney - Power of Attorney (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 >>