Hey everyone update for those following the patent challenge. 8,639,053
Its all public
It was posted Feb 18/2015
See what was said.
Have a good read its a TMMI victory imo
Anyone else care to put there opinion to
Stipulated Due Date
Due Date 1
? Patent owner’s response to
the petition
? Patent owner’s motion to
amend the patent
February 4, 2015
February 18, 2015
finding below
Table of Contents
1. Claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,639,053 Subject to Inter Partes Review ................................ 1 2. Cancelation of the Involved Claims and Statement of Intent Not to Defend its Interests
in this Proceeding......................................................................................................................... 1 3. Prayer For Relief ................................................................................................................... 2 4. Certificate Of Service ........................................................................................................... 3
-i-
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.120, Dimension, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) hereby submits its Response in Opposition to TMM, Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 1) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision to institute Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 6).
1. Claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,639,053 Subject to Inter Partes Review U.S. Patent No. 8,639,053 (“the ‘053 Patent”) entitled “Methods and
Systems For Up-Scaling A Standard Definition (SD) Video To High Definition (HD) Quality” was duly issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on January 28, 2014. The ‘053 Patent issued with 30 claims.
On May 23, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper No. 1) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 – 30 of the ‘053 Patent. The Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1-16 and 22-30 (the “Involved Claims”). The Board declined, however, to institute inter partes review of claims 17-21. The Board has not made a final determination of the patentability of the Involved Claims. (Paper No. 6, p.2).
2. Cancelation of the Involved Claims and Statement of Intent Not to Defend its Interests in this Proceeding
The Patent Owner does not ascribe to any of Petitioner’s arguments or agree with the correctness of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of the Involved Claims. However, solely to avoid a lengthy and costly legal proceeding
1
the Patent Owner, has elected to cancel the Involved Claims and not to defend its interests in this Proceeding.
Enjoy TMMI go TMMI Go
1 Patent down for Demented one
See how long this post last
