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

Maze Innovations, Inc. v. The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC

Docket IPR2016-00117, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Oct. 30, 2015)
Hyun Jung, Mitchell Weatherly, Scott Daniels, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8720218
Petitioner Maze Innovations, Inc.
Patent Owner The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

9 Notice: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2016-00117, No. 9 Notice - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on 10/30/2015 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $14,000 has been refunded to the Petitioner’s deposit account.
Case IPR2016-00117 Patent 8,720,218 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 Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
For the PATENT OWNER:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

7 Decision Denying Institution: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2016-00117, No. 7 Decision Denying Institution - Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)
Moreover, without citation to some evidence, for example, in the form of an expert declaration, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that “there are no viable, known compositions ... that undergo a reversible endothermic reaction upon the application of a certain amount of pressure” (Pet. 19).
Also, without other evidence regarding Fan’s disclosure beyond its resistance to being pierced or burst, we are not persuaded that Fan discloses that application and release of pressure by an object on its gel pad activates and deactivates, respectively, its cooling composition, as required by the challenged claims.
Claims 15 and 16 Petitioner states that the “only alleged deficiency [Patent Owner] identified in the district court case is that Xiong does not disclose ‘a pressure activated cooling composition.’” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1010, 8).
Petitioner further contends that “Fan’s and Xiong’s express disclosure of the advantages and necessity of having ‘channels’ ... constitutes a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Fan with Xiong, since both described similar solutions to the same problem[s].” Id. at 58.
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its challenge that Xiong and Fan render obvious claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 of the ’218 patent.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petitio...

Document IPR2016-00117, No. 3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

1 Petition: Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No 8,720,218

Document IPR2016-00117, No. 1 Petition - Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No 8,720,218 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Refund Request: Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees Under 37 CFR 1925

Document IPR2016-00117, No. 8 Refund Request - Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees Under 37 CFR 1925 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

6 Preliminary Response: Patent Owner Preliminary Response

Document IPR2016-00117, No. 6 Preliminary Response - Patent Owner Preliminary Response (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

4 Power of Attorney: Power of Attorney

Document IPR2016-00117, No. 4 Power of Attorney - Power of Attorney (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 >>