PTAB Nixes Claims In MIT-Owned 'Quantum Dot' Paten
Post# of 22456
(Total Views: 361)
Posted On: 01/15/2017 12:39:00 AM
PTAB Nixes Claims In MIT-Owned 'Quantum Dot' Patent
Law360, New York (July 6, 2016, 6:51 PM EDT) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Tuesday found that Nanoco Technologies Ltd. had sufficiently shown that various claims in a Massachusetts Institute of Technology patent related to so-called quantum dot technology were invalid as anticipated by prior art.
In a final written decision, the board ruled that Nanoco had proved that most of the challenged claims in MIT’s patent, titled “Highly Luminescent Color-Selective NanoCrystalline Materials,” are invalid as anticipated by prior art referred to as Peng.
Quantum dots are nanometer-sized semiconductor nanoparticles that emit bright, near-monochromatic light under light or electrical stimulation and are intended for use in ultrathin displays, lighting, solar cells and biological imaging.
“Having fully considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 24, 31, 32, 35–41, 43, 44, and 47–50 are unpatentable as anticipated by Peng,” the PTAB wrote.
But the board said Nanoco had failed to show that a number of claims were unpatentable as anticipated by prior art referred to as Murray.
The patent was among several that Nanoco was accused of infringing in 2009 by rival Nanosys Inc. in Wisconsin’s Western District, but the suit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
Nanosys had alleged that Nanoco’s U.S. distributor, Sigma-Aldrich Corp., was using quantum dot technology under patents licensed from MIT to produce devices such as solid-state lighting, photovoltaics and electronic displays.
The company had asked the court to find that Nanoco and Sigma-Aldrich had infringed the MIT quantum dot patents and to issue an injunction barring them selling the dots in the U.S. Nanosys also claimed the defendants had infringed willfully and had sought treble damages.
Tuesday’s decision marks the second MIT-owned patent Nanoco has successfully challenged recently, following a separate decision last week. On June 27, the PTAB found that various claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,501,091, which was not included in the 2009 suit, were anticipated by at least five different prior art references.
https://www.law360.com/articles/814387/ptab-n...dot-patent
Law360, New York (July 6, 2016, 6:51 PM EDT) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Tuesday found that Nanoco Technologies Ltd. had sufficiently shown that various claims in a Massachusetts Institute of Technology patent related to so-called quantum dot technology were invalid as anticipated by prior art.
In a final written decision, the board ruled that Nanoco had proved that most of the challenged claims in MIT’s patent, titled “Highly Luminescent Color-Selective NanoCrystalline Materials,” are invalid as anticipated by prior art referred to as Peng.
Quantum dots are nanometer-sized semiconductor nanoparticles that emit bright, near-monochromatic light under light or electrical stimulation and are intended for use in ultrathin displays, lighting, solar cells and biological imaging.
“Having fully considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 24, 31, 32, 35–41, 43, 44, and 47–50 are unpatentable as anticipated by Peng,” the PTAB wrote.
But the board said Nanoco had failed to show that a number of claims were unpatentable as anticipated by prior art referred to as Murray.
The patent was among several that Nanoco was accused of infringing in 2009 by rival Nanosys Inc. in Wisconsin’s Western District, but the suit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
Nanosys had alleged that Nanoco’s U.S. distributor, Sigma-Aldrich Corp., was using quantum dot technology under patents licensed from MIT to produce devices such as solid-state lighting, photovoltaics and electronic displays.
The company had asked the court to find that Nanoco and Sigma-Aldrich had infringed the MIT quantum dot patents and to issue an injunction barring them selling the dots in the U.S. Nanosys also claimed the defendants had infringed willfully and had sought treble damages.
Tuesday’s decision marks the second MIT-owned patent Nanoco has successfully challenged recently, following a separate decision last week. On June 27, the PTAB found that various claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,501,091, which was not included in the 2009 suit, were anticipated by at least five different prior art references.
https://www.law360.com/articles/814387/ptab-n...dot-patent
(0)
(0)Quantum Materials Corp. (QTMM) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼