The last decision in a trio of derivation petitions filed by Catapult Innovations against adidas AG has been released by the PTAB. In derivation proceeding DER2014-00005, Catapult filed a petition for derivation against adidas AG, alleging its U.S. Pat. App. 13/543,428 was derived from Catapult’s invention disclosed in U.S. Pat. App. 14/045,954.

Again, the Catapult disclosure in question, for purposes of proving derivation in this petition, is the same disclosure referred to in Case DER2014-00002 and Case DER2014-00006— a two-day presentation and demonstration given by Catapult’s CEO to adidas AG subsidiary AWSE, during which technical information regarding the subject matter of Catapult’s application was disclosed.

On July 18, 21014, the PTAB  denied Catapult’s petition  for the same reasons the petitions in DER2014-00002  and  DER2014-00006 were denied. Catapult had failed to establish prior conception of the invention, instead basing its derivation petition on “prior possession” of the information comprising the invention. Catapult also failed to identify a specific invention in the technical information it disclosed to adidas AG in the presentation and demonstration referred to above. And once again, Catapult failed to consistently establish the technical information it disclosed to adidas AG during the presentation and demonstration was substantially similar to claims in its own application, U.S. Pat. App. 14/045,954.

See “PTAB Denies Two of Three Derivation Petitions Filed by Catapult Innovations Against adidas AG” for more information regarding derivation proceedings and background on petitions DER20140-00002 and DER2014-00006.