• 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)

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)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Refund Request: Petitioner Supercell Oys Request for Refund of Post Grant Revi...

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)

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 >>