L&P Convinces the PTAB not to Institute Trial against Memory Chip Patent

Polaris Innovations Ltd. was represented by Laurence & Phillips IP Law (L&P) in an inter partes review (IPR), IPR2017-00382, which was filed by NVIDIA Corp. against U.S. Patent No. 7,124,325.  The patent is one of several at issue in infringement litigation brought by Polaris, and NVIDIA filed an IPR petition against the ’325 Patent.  L&P filed a preliminary response to the petition on behalf of Polaris, arguing why trial should not be instituted.  The PTAB agreed with Polaris’s claim interpretations and criticism of the petition’s improper presentation of obviousness grounds:  “[W]e agree with Patent Owner’s contention that ‘Challenge 1 is two anticipation challenges improperly paired together and presented as a single obviousness challenge.’”

Matt Phillips of Laurence & Phillips IP Law stated, “Avoiding institution of an IPR is far better than winning after a trial.  Avoiding trial is cheaper, faster, and less risky.”  Regarding the obviousness challenges in this case, Matt added, “While obviousness affords more flexibility than anticipation, it generally does not work to fit an anticipation ‘peg’ in an obviousness ‘hole.’”  The gist of the ’325 Patent can be appreciated by its Figure 3, which is provided below.