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.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
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)
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:
Harari and Anderson
Harari, Anderson, and Dumas
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.
ROUTINE OPINION. Pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 2, the opinion below has been designated a routine opinion.
patent, inter partes, estop, estoppel, was, written decision, earlier petition, unpatentable, has