`
`Paper: 29
`Entered: May 7, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S.
`Apr. 24, 2018). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that all of the
`challenged claims of the ’867 patent are unpatentable.
`Specifically we instituted on the following claims and grounds:
`1. Claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`
`Hsu;
`
`2. Claims 17 and 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hsu;
`3. Claims 17, 18, and 32 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Hsu and Franaszek;
`4. Claim 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hsu and
`Langdon, Jr.; and
`5. Claims 16–19, 32, 34, and 35 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 as obvious over Franaszek and Hsu. Decision on Institution, Paper 14,
`38–39.
`We modify our institution decision to institute on all of the grounds
`presented in the Petition, including:
`1. Claims 16–19, 32, 34, and 35 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by Franaszek;
`2. Claims 16–19, 32, 34, and 35 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Franaszek;
`3. Claim 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Franaszek
`and Langdon, Jr.;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`
`4. Claims 16–19, 32, 34, and 35 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Franaszek and Langdon, Jr.; and
`5. Claim 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Franaszek,
`Hsu, and Langdon, Jr. See id. at 6.
`An oral hearing was held on February 20, 2018, and a final decision is
`due to be entered by July 6, 2018. The parties shall confer to discuss the
`impact, if any, of this Order on the proceeding. If, after conferring, the
`parties wish to submit briefing on the grounds upon which trial was not
`instituted in the Decision on Institution, the parties must, within one week of
`the date of this Order, request a conference call with the panel to seek
`authorization for such briefing.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that our institution decision is modified to include review
`of all grounds presented in the Petition; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine whether they desire any additional briefing, and, if so, request a
`conference call with the panel to seek authorization for such briefing within
`one week of the date of this Order.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`Jamie R. Lynn
`Ali Dhanani
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com
`ali.dhanani@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`William P. Rothwell
`Kayvan B. Noroozi
`NOROOZI PC
`william@noroozipc.com
`kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
