George Jordan (US)

Subscribe to all posts by George Jordan (US)

Refused Cross-Examination Results in PTAB Striking Non-Party Witness Declaration

By George Jordan (US) on December 9, 2015 Posted in Discovery

In HTC Corp. v. NFC Tech., LLC, the PTAB granted the Petitioner’s motion to strike and expunge the declaration of the Patent Owner’s non-party witness, who refused to submit to cross-examination. IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 (Nov. 6, 2015). The Patent Owner submitted a declaration of a non-party witness residing in France to support its alleged earlier … Continue reading

PTAB cautiously authorizes motion to disqualify expert

By George Jordan (US) on September 14, 2015 Posted in Experts

In Agila Specialties Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., the PTAB provided guidance on seeking the disqualification of an expert. Although the Board authorized the Patent Owner to file a Motion to Disqualify the Petitioner’s expert on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest, the Board raised a host of issues the Patent Owner would need … Continue reading

PTAB emphasizes importance of claim language in determination of CBM-eligibility

By George Jordan (US) on March 14, 2015 Posted in Institution decisions

In Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, the PTAB considered the effect of a statutory disclaimer, statements in the specification, and the patent’s assigned classification on whether the challenged patent was eligible for a Covered Business Method review. The Board ultimately declined to institute, finding that the patent was ineligible for CBM review … Continue reading

PTAB denies request for rehearing based on failure to construe claim limitation

By George Jordan (US) on March 11, 2015 Posted in Claim construction, Institution decisions

In Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd. v. Simon N. Richmond, the PTAB denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of a decision not to institute an IPR. IPR2014-00937, Paper 24 (Feb. 6, 2015). Maintaining its decision that the Petitioner failed to properly address a claim limitation that was “critical” to understanding claim scope, the Board held no abuse … Continue reading