Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

2018 Pat. App. LEXIS 10595

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Representative Orders, Decisions and Notices

November 6, 2018, Decided

Case IPR2018-01002, Paper No. 12Patent 6,003,135

USPTO Bd of Patent Appeals & Interferences; Patent Trial & Appeal Bd Decs.

Opinion

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

ORDER

Dismissing Petition for Inter Partes Review - Petitioner Estopped 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(a), 42.73(d)(1)

I. INTRODUCTION

Kingston Technology Company, Inc. ("Petitioner" or "Kingston") requests inter partes  review of claims 55-58 (the "challenged claims") of U.S. Patent No. 6,003,135 ("the '135 patent," Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. Paper [*2]  2 ("Petition" or "Pet."). Concurrent with filing the Petition, Petitioner filed a motion seeking joinder with Case IPR2018-00084 or, in the alternative, coordination of the schedule for this proceeding with IPR2018-00084 and a shortened schedule for Patent Owner's Preliminary Response filing. Paper 3 ("Motion" or "Mot."). SPEX Technologies, Inc. ("Patent Owner" or "SPEX") did not file a Preliminary Response but filed an Opposition to Petitioner's Motion. Paper 8 ("Opposition" or "Opp.").

Petitioner's Motion asserts this Petition "includes only the grounds instituted in IPR2018-00084 and is substantively identical on those grounds." Mot. 1. The grounds instituted in IPR2018-00084 are:

References

Basis

Claims challenged

Harari 1 and Anderson 2

§ 103

55-58

Harari, Anderson, and Dumas 3

§ 103

56 and 57

Kingston previously filed a petition in Case IPR2017-01021 challenging the '135 patent that resulted in issuance of a Final Written Decision on October 1, 2018. Case IPR2017-01021, Paper 39 ("Decision" or "Dec.").

Case IPR2017-01021 challenged the same claims as Kingston challenges here (i.e., claims 55-58), based on the following grounds:

Reference(s)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2018 Pat. App. LEXIS 10595 *

KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Patent Owner.

Notice:

 [*1] 

ROUTINE OPINION. Pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 2, the opinion below has been designated a routine opinion.

CORE TERMS

patent, inter partes, estop, estoppel, was, written decision, earlier petition, unpatentable, has