PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 6771381. This proceeding, IPR2013-00309, resulted in a Final Written Decision, but the provided patent text does not specify the outcome at the claim level (i.e., whether claims were invalidated or sustained). Therefore, the bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is currently uncertain regarding the specific claims tested in this IPR based on the provided information, but the existence of a Final Written Decision indicates some claims were evaluated.

IPR2013-00309 — Unified Patents, Inc. v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The Google Patents page lists the PTAB case IPR2013-00309 as filed. The "Application filed by Individual" and "Priority to US09/438,300" events are listed on 1999-11-12. The specific filing date for the IPR petition itself is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the IPR number indicates it was filed in 2013.
• Status: Final Written Decision issued.
• Judge panel: Not specified in the provided text.
• Petition grounds: Not specified in the provided text.
• Institution decision: Not specified in the provided text.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The Google Patents page indicates that a Final Written Decision was issued for IPR2013-00309. However, the provided patent text does not detail the specific claims that were canceled or sustained, nor does it quote the panel's reasoning.
• Settlement / termination: Not specified in the provided text.
• Appeal: The Google Patents page indicates multiple US cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (14-0137 and 14-1481), which could potentially be related to appeals from IPR2013-00309 or other litigation. However, the provided text does not explicitly confirm that these CAFC dockets are appeals of the FWD in IPR2013-00309, nor does it detail the issues on appeal or the disposition.
• Defensive value: The existence of a Final Written Decision means that at least some claims of US6771381 were challenged and adjudicated by the PTAB. Without the specifics of the FWD, it's impossible to determine which claims, if any, were invalidated or affirmed. A defendant would need to review the full FWD to understand its impact on any assertion of this patent.

Strategic summary

Based on the provided information, only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2013-00309, has been identified for US6771381, initiated by Unified Patents. A Final Written Decision was issued in this proceeding, indicating that the challenged claims were adjudicated. However, the provided patent text does not specify the outcome at a claim-level granularity (i.e., which claims were canceled, sustained, or left untested). Therefore, it is currently unknown which specific claims of 6771381 remain patentable and which may have been invalidated as a result of this IPR.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if Unified Patents, Inc. was the petitioner, then under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), they (and their privies) would be estopped from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2013-00309 with respect to any claim found patentable in the FWD. Without knowing the challenged claims, prior art grounds, and the FWD's specific findings, it's impossible to determine the full scope of estoppel. The patent owner, MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, has been involved in several litigations related to this patent, as indicated by the multiple district court and Federal Circuit cases listed, suggesting an aggressive assertion strategy. The involvement of Unified Patents as a petitioner is a "pattern signal" indicating a defensive aggregator targeting the patent, often in response to assertions against its members.

Recommended next steps

A defendant facing assertion of US6771381 should immediately obtain and thoroughly review the complete Final Written Decision for IPR2013-00309. This document is crucial to understand which specific claims, if any, were invalidated or affirmed. The FWD would typically be available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website.

If claims crucial to the plaintiff's infringement theory were canceled, this could significantly weaken the assertion. Conversely, if key claims were sustained, it would indicate that IPR-based defenses for those specific claims against the prior art raised in IPR2013-00309 might be more challenging. Additionally, investigating the Federal Circuit dockets (14-0137 and 14-1481) for any appeals directly related to IPR2013-00309 would be critical to determine the final legal status of the challenged claims.## Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 6771381. This proceeding, IPR2013-00309, reached an institution decision in 2013, and a Final Written Decision was subsequently issued. While the provided text confirms the existence of the FWD, it does not detail the claim-level outcome (i.e., whether claims were invalidated or sustained). Therefore, the bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is currently uncertain regarding the specific claims tested in this IPR.

IPR2013-00309 — Hewlett-Packard Co. v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The IPR was filed in 2013. The specific filing date of the petition is not provided in the authoritative patent text or the search results.
• Status: Final Written Decision issued.
• Judge panel: Not explicitly specified in the provided text or search results for IPR2013-00309.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and prior art grounds are not detailed in the provided text or search results. However, the proceeding involved claim construction of the phrase "at least one" followed by an "and" list of modules and their functions, which the PTAB construed in a disjunctive fashion.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The PTAB's decision on institution occurred by November 21, 2013, as indicated by a reference to "IPR2013-00309, 2013 WL 8563946 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)" which discussed claim construction. The reasoning included the Board construing "at least one" followed by an "and" list disjunctively, considering embodiments in the specification that supported alternative modules and functions.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued, as indicated by the Google Patents page and discussed in legal analyses. However, the provided patent text and search results do not specify the date of the FWD, which independent or dependent claims were canceled, or which were held patentable. The panel's reasoning and specific claim outcomes are not available in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not specified in the provided text or search results.
• Appeal: Not explicitly detailed as an appeal of the FWD in IPR2013-00309 in the provided search results. While the Google Patents page lists US cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (14-0137 and 14-1481), and notes "Family has litigation," it does not definitively link these to an appeal of the IPR2013-00309 FWD.
• Defensive value: Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP Co.) was the petitioner in this IPR. The PTAB instituted review and issued a Final Written Decision. The outcome of the FWD at a claim-specific level is not provided, making it impossible to state which claims, if any, were invalidated or confirmed. A defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to consult the full FWD for IPR2013-00309 to understand the estoppel implications and the patentability status of the claims.

Strategic summary

Only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2013-00309, has been identified for US6771381, initiated by Hewlett-Packard Co. against patent owner MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC. The PTAB instituted review and issued a Final Written Decision. Critical details regarding the FWD's outcome, such as which claims were canceled or sustained, are not available in the provided information. Therefore, it is currently unknown which specific claims of US6771381 are still considered patentable. However, a notable aspect of the institution decision involved the PTAB's disjunctive construction of the claim phrase "at least one" followed by an "and" list of modules and their functions.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if claims were found unpatentable in the FWD, Hewlett-Packard Co. and its privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting those same unpatentability grounds (or grounds that reasonably could have been raised) in other proceedings. Conversely, if claims were upheld, HP and its privies would be estopped from challenging those claims on the grounds raised or that could have been reasonably raised. Without knowing the FWD's specifics, the precise scope of this estoppel for potential future challengers remains unclear. The involvement of Hewlett-Packard as a petitioner indicates that at least one major entity found it necessary to challenge the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

If a defendant is currently facing assertion of US6771381, it is imperative to obtain and meticulously review the complete Final Written Decision for IPR2013-00309. This document is the authoritative source for understanding the PTAB's findings on claim patentability, including which claims were canceled or upheld. Without this, it's impossible to definitively assess the strength of any current assertion against the patent. The FWD would typically be accessible through the USPTO PTAB E2E portal or by searching its decision database. Additionally, it would be prudent to investigate whether the IPR2013-00309 FWD was appealed to the Federal Circuit, and if so, review the docket and opinion for the outcome of that appeal.## Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding, IPR2013-00309, was filed against US patent 6771381. This proceeding, initiated by Hewlett-Packard Co. against MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, resulted in a Final Written Decision. The provided information, however, does not explicitly state the claim-level outcome of this decision. Therefore, without the specifics of the Final Written Decision, the bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant regarding the specific claims tested in this IPR is uncertain.

IPR2013-00309 — Hewlett-Packard Co. v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The IPR petition was filed in 2013. The exact filing date is not specified in the provided information.
• Status: Final Written Decision issued.
• Judge panel: Not explicitly specified in the provided text or search results for IPR2013-00309.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art relied upon are not detailed in the provided information. However, the proceeding involved claim construction related to the phrase "at least one" followed by an "and" list of modules and their functions.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The PTAB issued an institution decision by November 21, 2013. In this decision, the Board construed the phrase "at least one" followed by an "and" list of modules and their functions in a disjunctive fashion, considering embodiments in the specification that supported multiple alternative modules and functions.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued for IPR2013-00309. However, the provided patent text and search results do not specify the date of the FWD, nor do they detail which independent or dependent claims were canceled or held patentable. The specific reasoning of the panel and the claim-by-claim outcomes are not available.
• Settlement / termination: Not specified in the provided text or search results.
• Appeal: While the Google Patents page lists multiple US cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (e.g., 14-0137, 14-1481) related to the patent family, the provided information does not definitively link these to an appeal of the FWD in IPR2013-00309. The issues on appeal and their dispositions are therefore not known from the provided data.
• Defensive value: Hewlett-Packard Co. acted as the petitioner in this IPR. The issuance of a Final Written Decision means that the PTAB made a determination on the patentability of the challenged claims. However, without knowing the specific outcome of the FWD, it is not possible to conclusively determine which claims were invalidated or upheld. A defendant would need to review the complete FWD to understand the precise impact on the patent's claims and any associated estoppel.

Strategic summary

Only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2013-00309, has been identified for US6771381. This Inter Partes Review was initiated by Hewlett-Packard Co. against MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, and it proceeded to a Final Written Decision. While the fact that a Final Written Decision was issued indicates that the challenged claims were adjudicated, the provided information does not include the critical details of that decision, specifically which claims, if any, were cancelled or confirmed as patentable. Therefore, the current status of the patent's claims (CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED) remains largely unknown from the provided materials.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if any claims were found unpatentable in the IPR2013-00309 FWD, then Hewlett-Packard Co. and its privies would be estopped from asserting those same or reasonably could-have-been-raised grounds in future proceedings against those claims, per 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Conversely, if claims were confirmed, then HP and its privies would be estopped from re-challenging those claims on the same or reasonably could-have-been-raised grounds. The absence of specific outcomes limits the ability to define the precise estoppel boundaries for this patent. The patent owner, MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, has been involved in several litigations related to this patent, suggesting an active enforcement strategy that prompted the IPR challenge from Hewlett-Packard. The involvement of a large entity like Hewlett-Packard as a petitioner signals that the patent was perceived as a threat or was being asserted.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US6771381, the most crucial immediate step is to obtain and thoroughly review the full Final Written Decision for IPR2013-00309. This document is essential for understanding the PTAB's specific findings regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. Access to the FWD can typically be found via the USPTO PTAB E2E portal using the IPR number IPR2013-00309. Quoting the disposition from the FWD would definitively clarify which claims, if any, are no longer valid. It is also advisable to check for any appeals of this FWD to the Federal Circuit to determine the ultimate judicial resolution of the IPR.