Another huge article this weekend in favor of SFOR!!! The AIA or 'America Invents Act' has already vindicated SFOR on 25 CLAIMS!!! If one would have questioned then IPR would have been instituted!!
Note below:
By Matthew Bultman
Law360 (June 8, 2018, 8:02 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to end the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ability to pick what claims it scrutinizes in America Invents Act reviews has forced courts and the board to re-examine common practices in order to comply, and over the past six weeks, experts have noticed a new landscape taking shape.
The high court in SAS Institute v. Iancu ruled the law is clear that if the PTAB is going to inspect a patent in an AIA review, it must address all the claims...
Supreme Court Rules AIA Reviews are Constitutional
APRIL 25, 2018 IN IP NEWS BY SHANE R. THIELEN - PATENT ATTORNEY
Inter Partes Review
On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two opinions pertaining to inter partes review (IPR); a relatively new mechanism for challenging the validity of a U.S. patent, enacted by the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2012. IPR allows anyone to challenge the validity of an issued patent on the grounds that the subject matter covered by the patent is the same as, or would have been obvious in light of, other patents or printed publications that would have been available when the patent application was filed, provided the challenger can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.
What about SFOR's IPR/AIA case?
DECISION - October 17, 2017
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
Duo Security Inc., Centrify Corporation, and Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 B2 (Ex. 1001, “’698 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Thus, for the reasons given below, we deny institution of an inter partes review.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, for the reasons given, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’698 patent, claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54, are unpatentable. Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 B2.
Note below:
By Matthew Bultman
Law360 (June 8, 2018, 8:02 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to end the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ability to pick what claims it scrutinizes in America Invents Act reviews has forced courts and the board to re-examine common practices in order to comply, and over the past six weeks, experts have noticed a new landscape taking shape.
The high court in SAS Institute v. Iancu ruled the law is clear that if the PTAB is going to inspect a patent in an AIA review, it must address all the claims...
Supreme Court Rules AIA Reviews are Constitutional
APRIL 25, 2018 IN IP NEWS BY SHANE R. THIELEN - PATENT ATTORNEY
Inter Partes Review
On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two opinions pertaining to inter partes review (IPR); a relatively new mechanism for challenging the validity of a U.S. patent, enacted by the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2012. IPR allows anyone to challenge the validity of an issued patent on the grounds that the subject matter covered by the patent is the same as, or would have been obvious in light of, other patents or printed publications that would have been available when the patent application was filed, provided the challenger can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.
What about SFOR's IPR/AIA case?
DECISION - October 17, 2017
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
Duo Security Inc., Centrify Corporation, and Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 B2 (Ex. 1001, “’698 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Thus, for the reasons given below, we deny institution of an inter partes review.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, for the reasons given, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’698 patent, claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54, are unpatentable. Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 B2.
9
