PTAB challenges

Important Contradiction Alert:

There is a significant contradiction between the "Previously generated sections of this patent" provided in the prompt and the "Full patent text" (EP2449782B1) that I am instructed to use as authoritative.

• The "Previously generated sections" describe a patent titled "METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING A PLASTIC CONTAINER" assigned to "KHS CORPOPLAST GMBH," with claims related to tempering the neck region of a plastic preform.
• The "Full patent text" (EP2449782B1) explicitly refers to a patent titled "Methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks for video encoders and decoders" assigned to "Thomson Licensing SAS," with claims related to video encoding and decoding.

The information from the authoritative "Full patent text" will be used for this analysis. The "Previously generated sections" appear to describe a completely different patent, potentially due to an identifier error in the preceding steps of the analysis.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file with the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for US patent EP2449782B1 or its direct U.S. counterparts. This patent is a granted European patent, and PTAB proceedings are conducted exclusively against granted U.S. patents. While EP2449782B1 has a corresponding U.S. patent application publication (US20120106629A1), a search for a granted U.S. patent in the same family, under which PTAB challenges could be filed, did not yield any specific granted U.S. patent with the same inventive subject matter. Therefore, a defendant facing assertion of this patent in the U.S. would not find any prior PTAB validity challenges.

Strategic summary

As EP2449782B1 is a European patent, it cannot be directly challenged at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. PTAB proceedings, such as Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews, are applicable only to granted U.S. patents. Current searches for a granted U.S. patent directly corresponding to EP2449782B1, which addresses "Methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks for video encoders and decoders" and is assigned to Thomson Licensing SAS (now InterDigital), did not identify such a granted U.S. patent. Without a granted U.S. patent, there is no basis for PTAB activity.

Consequently, there are no claims of EP2449782B1 (or its U.S. counterparts, if any were granted) that have been canceled, sustained, or even tested in PTAB proceedings. The estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) are therefore not applicable, as no petitioner has raised or could have raised grounds against a granted U.S. patent in this family. The absence of PTAB activity means that all prior-art grounds remain potentially available for a challenge if a corresponding U.S. patent were to be asserted.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for a granted U.S. patent corresponding to EP2449782B1, the initial steps for a defendant facing assertion of this technology in the U.S. would involve:

• Confirming the existence and claims of any granted U.S. patent that the patent owner might be asserting as a U.S. counterpart to EP2449782B1. This is crucial as PTAB proceedings can only be filed against granted U.S. patents.
• Conducting a thorough prior art search if a relevant granted U.S. patent is identified. This would lay the groundwork for a potential IPR, PGR, or other validity challenge at the USPTO should such a U.S. patent be asserted.
• Analyzing the patent owner's broader patent portfolio and litigation history to identify patterns in their enforcement strategies, especially given Thomson Licensing SAS's (InterDigital's) extensive litigation in video compression.