Folks please do not gloss over the significance of
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 890)
Posted On: 06/08/2018 12:30:53 PM
Re: Hate Liars #29256
Folks please do not gloss over the significance of what has been posted this morning.
In October 2017 the PTAB was asked to review 25 claims (Claims 1-17, 19-24, 53 and 54) on SFOR patent 698.
We also know that the CA District Judge in the SecureAuth case invalidated 43 asserted claims in StrikeForce’s three asserted patents, including the 698 patent.
Pay attention to the below key phrase from the PTAB SFOR ruling regarding only ONE QUESTIONABLE CLAIM...
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.
NOT EVEN ONE CLAIM WAS FOUND WORTHY OF BEING QUESTIONED BY THE PTAB IN SFOR's CASE!!! In fact, the PTAB added 7 additional claims for SFOR's patents to make them even stronger!!
In October 2017 the PTAB was asked to review 25 claims (Claims 1-17, 19-24, 53 and 54) on SFOR patent 698.
We also know that the CA District Judge in the SecureAuth case invalidated 43 asserted claims in StrikeForce’s three asserted patents, including the 698 patent.
Pay attention to the below key phrase from the PTAB SFOR ruling regarding only ONE QUESTIONABLE CLAIM...
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.
NOT EVEN ONE CLAIM WAS FOUND WORTHY OF BEING QUESTIONED BY THE PTAB IN SFOR's CASE!!! In fact, the PTAB added 7 additional claims for SFOR's patents to make them even stronger!!
(6)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼