It's been over a year since I wrote my article about SpaceX so this is a long overdue part 2 article on IPR re: SpaceX v. Blue Origin. I thought I'd write it because SpaceX is launching Falcon 9 rocket this Friday.
By the way, it's crazy that IPRookie's been around for some time now. Quick shout out to my loyal readers.
I want to remind everyone that back in August 2014, SpaceX filed two petitions (instituting two separate cases): one for Blue Origin's method claims (Claims 1 through 13) and one for Blue Origin's system claims (Claims 14, 15) in U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321 (the "'321 Patent") More specifically, SpaceX challenged the '321 Patent on grounds that claims 1-13 were anticipated/obvious under Sections 102 and 103; and claims 14 and 15 were obvious under Section 103. At the time that I posted my previous article, Blue Origin's response to the petition was still due. It turns out, they never filed a preliminary response to the petition.
Here is a quick overview of what happened to the two cases.
I thought it was interesting that IPR was instituted for some of the claims. I read the decision for IPR2014-01378 first and I thought to myself that the other proceeding was scrapped as well, but that was not the case. So why the different outcome?
Remember that challenged claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. (s) 42.100(b). The claims are then analyzed to see if they are anticipated or obvious.
The actual decisions are available here.