CAFC affirms PTAB in Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00527; IV's claims gone in US 7,496,674
In 2015-1947, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB under Rule 36 [ AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ], meaning that patentee-appellant Intellectual Ventures lost.
Of the PTAB case:
Patent Owner had filed a Motion to Exclude information including the above-mentioned Stadler reference as well as excerpts from the cross-examination of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Newman. In this connection, Patent Owner had “objected to Stadler on the grounds of hearsay and lack of authenticity.” The Board disagreed with Patent Owner, accepting that the publication information on the IEEE copyright line in Stadler constituted sufficient “evidence of its date of publication and public accessibility.” The Board denied Patent Owner’s attempt to exclude excerpts of the cross-examination deposition testimony of Dr. Newman as being outside of the scope of direct examination because “[i]n the testimonial excerpts under consideration, Dr. Newman repeatedly admitted a lack of familiarity with the subject matter of the ’674 patent . . . (‘I really haven’t spent very much time looking at this . . . .’)[,]” which led the Board to conclude that “[t]his testimony goes to Dr. Newman’s credibility and, therefore, does not exceed the proper scope of cross-examination.”
Separately, as to the obviousness issues in the case, see