Insights

PTAB Interprets "By Another" in 35 § 102(e), <i>PTAB Litigation Blog</i>

PTAB Interprets "By Another" in 35 § 102(e), PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the Jones Day PTAB Litigation Blog.

In connection with a dispute over parking meters, the PTAB, on March 27, 2017, issued a decision in IPR2016-00067 that Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. (DPT) had not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that claims 1-5, 7, and 9 of the U.S. Patent No. 7,854,310 ("the ‘310 patent"), owned by IPS Group, Inc. (IPS), were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e). With respect to claims 8 and 10, however, DPT met the requisite burden such that these claims were found to be unpatentable.

Read the full article at ptablitigationblog.com.

We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.