More Details, Details

more+
less-

In ATopTech, Inc. v. Sunopsis, Inc., IPR2014-01160, Paper 3,(July 25, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted the absense of an exhibit list referencing the correct exhibit numbers are required by 37 C.F.R §42.63(e), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defect.

In ATopTech, Inc. v. Sunopsis, Inc., IPR2014-01150, Paper 3, and IPR2014-01159, Paper 3,(July 25, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted the absense of a correct certificate of service required by 37 C.F.R §42.6(e), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defect.

In Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-01035, Paper 6 (July 24, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted that the petition used too narrow a font in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii)(A); and failed to certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for inter partes review as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defects.

In Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-01032, Paper 5, IPR2014-01033, Paper 5, and IPR2014-01036, Paper 5 (July 24, 2014),  the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted that the petition used too narrow a font in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii)(A); failed to certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for inter partes review as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) contained incorrect (non-double) spacing contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii) (charts only listing claim limitations should be double-spaced); and failed to certify that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting the review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in the petition as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defects.

In Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-01034, Paper 6 (July 24, 2014), the Board granted a filing date to the petitioner, but noted that the petition used too narrow a font in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii)(A); failed to certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for inter partes review as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); and failed to have a coplete Exhibit list, and gave petitioner five business days to correct the defects.

 

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

CONNECT

Reporters on Deadline

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×