Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition ... and any response ... 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).
Petitioner replies by arguing that the Texas litigation “remains in its early stages,” asserting that a trial date has not been set, a claim construction hearing has not been held, discovery is ongoing, and the parties have not served final infringement and invalidity contentions.
Patent 10,030,461 B2 argues that “wedge assembly,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 6, should be interpreted under § 112(f), we need not resolve the issue because, for the reasons provided below, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown for purposes of this Decision that the asserted prior art teaches the limitation.
Based on our review of the current record before us, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 in view of Ahlstone, McGuire, and Baugh.
Based on our review of the current record before us, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 5 and 10 in view of Ahlstone, McGuire, and API 16A.