Main Menu

In this inter partes review, the PTAB confirmed the validity of certain claims but held two other claims to be invalid.  The court affirmed the finding that certain claims were valid over the prior art as being supported by substantial evidence.  Even adopting Dell’s understanding of the Hipp reference, it still did not anticipate the claims, because it failed to disclose the required interactions with the network access storage. 

The court vacated the findings of invalidity with respect to the two other claims.  As to claim 20, the court held that the PTAB erred in construing the claim by writing out the “remotely poll” limitation.  The court vacated that finding and remanded for further findings.  As to claim 3, Dell raised the issue, relied on by the PTAB, for the first time at the oral argument.  This was after the time for Acceleron to have responded passed, and therefore, because Acceleron did not have notice or a fair opportunity to respond, the PTAB’s cancellation of claim 3 was vacated and remanded. 

Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, Case Nos. 2015-1513, -1514 (March 15, 2016); Opinion by: Taranto, joined by Moore and Hughes; Appealed From: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Read the full opinion here.

Back to Page