Big win for the Far UV light coalition!  Scorecard update!

Far UV Coalition: 01

      Patent Trolls: 00

Unfortunately, potentially one of our best defenses thought-out the pandemic hasn’t seen the light of day.  A consortium of companies has formed a coalition to protect America’s right to innovate from the seeds of common knowledge. Those not aware of this Far UVC light technology can thank several frivolous lawsuits for suppressing and manipulating life-saving technology aided by patent trolls weaponizing the US patent office.  Today, the battle has officially begun as an instituted trial held by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)!

PTAB Institution Decision: Granted 

Patent Owner’s § 325(d) arguments do not implicate sufficiently the Petition as a whole. As such, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution.

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the arguments in the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–10 and 12–18 of the ’642 patent are unpatentable.   Our factual findings, conclusions of law, and determinations at this stage of the proceeding are preliminary and based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to the patentability of claims for which inter partes review is instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.
V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’642 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and
IPR2022-00381 Patent 9,700,642 B2

FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of the ’642 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the entry date of this Decision, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.

This is a possible 8-round fight! Stay tuned for these dates!

DUE DATE APPENDIX
DUE DATE 1 ………………………………………………………….. November 7, 2022
Patent Owner’s response to the petition
Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
DUE DATE 2 …………………………………………………………….. January 30, 2023
Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to petition
Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 3 ………………………………………………………………. March 13, 2023
Patent Owner’s sur-reply to reply
Patent Owner’s reply to opposition to motion to amend
(or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend)5
DUE DATE 4 ………………………………………………………………….. April 3, 2023
Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
DUE DATE 5 ………………………………………………………………… April 24, 2023
Petitioner’s sur-reply to reply to opposition to motion to amend
Motion to exclude evidence
DUE DATE 6 …………………………………………………………………… May 1, 2023
Opposition to motion to exclude
Request for prehearing conference
DUE DATE 7 …………………………………………………………………… May 8, 2023
Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 8 …………………………………………………………………. May 16, 2023
Oral argument (if requested)