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

Motif FoodWorks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.

Docket IPR2023-00209, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 7, 2022)
Christopher Kaiser, Donna Praiss, Jeffrey Abraham, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent10039306
Patent Owner Impossible Foods, Inc.
Petitioner Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

23 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Deny

Document IPR2023-00209, No. 23 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Deny (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2023)
According to the ’306 patent, “[c]haracteristic flavor and fragrance components in meat are mostly produced during the cooking process by chemical reactions molecules (precursors) including amino acids,
“Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).
On the other hand, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418; accord In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “generally motivated by Rovaart itself to use techniques and ingredients that enhance the meaty flavor of Rovaart’s food products,” and would have “recognize[d] that one way to do so would be to include other ‘natural’ ‘suitable flavouring agents’ in the products.” Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 336–337).
We reach a similar result with regard to Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be “generally motivated by Rovaart itself to use techniques and ingredients that enhance the meaty flavor of Rovaart’s food products.” Pet. 50–51.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

15 Order Other: Granting Patent Owner Motion for Leave to Seek a Certificate of Correction 37 CFR § 1323, 4220

Document IPR2023-00209, No. 15 Order Other - Granting Patent Owner Motion for Leave to Seek a Certificate of Correction 37 CFR § 1323, 4220 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2023)
Patent Owner contends that, even though 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 does not apply here because this inter partes review proceeding is in the pre- institution phase and, thus, not involved in a “trial” before the Board, the applicable standard has been met.
Patent Owner asserts that “[g]ranting of a petition and request for a certificate of correction would disqualify Brown as prior art and thus provide a basis for rejecting these grounds [in IPR2023-00206 and IPR2023- 00207].” Mot.
After reviewing the arguments in the Motion and the Opposition, we conclude that “there is a sufficient basis supporting Patent Owner’s position that the mistake may be correctable.” Honeywell, 939 F.3d at 1349.
Petitioner’s arguments directed to whether the omission was “unintentional” and made “in good faith” go to the merits of Patent Owner’s requested correction, which is in the purview of the Director and not the Board.
Second, Petitioner requests that we instruct Patent Owner to include Petitioner’s Opposition and any Board order concerning the Motion with its petition to the Director.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

3 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice Notice filing date accorded

Document IPR2023-00209, No. 3 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice Notice filing date accorded (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2022)
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.
Ian Robert Liston Jennifer A. Ward Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Case IPR2023-00209 Patent No. 10,039,306
If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, Case IPR2023-00209 Patent No. 10,039,306 mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

22 Other other: Patent Owners Response to Petitioner Priority Briefing

Document IPR2023-00209, No. 22 Other other - Patent Owners Response to Petitioner Priority Briefing (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

17 Motion Other: Petitioners Opening Brief Challenging Priority Claim

Document IPR2023-00209, No. 17 Motion Other - Petitioners Opening Brief Challenging Priority Claim (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

11 Opposition: Petitioners Opposition to POs Motion Pursuant to 1323

Document IPR2023-00209, No. 11 Opposition - Petitioners Opposition to POs Motion Pursuant to 1323 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

9 Motion Other: Patent Owners Motion Pursuant to 37 CFR §1323

Document IPR2023-00209, No. 9 Motion Other - Patent Owners Motion Pursuant to 37 CFR §1323 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 12 >>