On April 17, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued an Institution Decision in Case PGR2018-00100 in which 20/20NOW is challenging the validity of DigitalOptometrics’ patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,980,644 (“the ‘644 patent”).
| NEW YORK, June 10, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- On April 17, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued an Institution Decision in Case PGR2018-00100 in which 20/20NOW is challenging the validity of DigitalOptometrics’ patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,980,644 (“the ‘644 patent”).
20/20NOW, the pioneer and innovator of Ocular Telehealth, has more than twenty patents and patent applications, dating back to 2007, for its innovative and proprietary examination software, technology and processes. This includes eight patents that have been granted in the U.S. and multiple jurisdictions across the world. 20/20NOW continues to file patents in order to protect its valuable state-of-the-art ocular telehealth model. Last year, 20/20NOW filed a Post Grant Review (“PGR”) Petition asking the Patent Office to review DigitalOptometrics’ recently issued ‘644 Patent on numerous grounds. In its Institution Decision, the PTAB agreed with virtually all of 20/20NOW’s arguments, finding that 20/20NOW demonstrated the ‘644 patent is invalid for multiple distinct reasons. The PTAB determined that 20/20NOW demonstrated every claim in the ‘644 Patent was already disclosed by, or would be obvious based upon, 20/20NOW’s much earlier-filed patents. The PTAB also determined that 20/20NOW demonstrated the ‘644 Patent fails to comply with the subject-matter eligibility requirements of Section 101 of the Patent Act, as set forth in the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. The Institution Decision also calls into question DigitalOptometrics’ other pending patent applications, all of which are based upon, or related to, the ‘644 patent. Additionally, in DigitalOptometrics’ related international PCT patent application, the reviewing body recently issued a report finding that that application lacks novelty and determining (like the PTAB did in the PGR) that the claims are likely not patentable in light of 20/20NOW’s pre-existing patents and applications. According to 20/20NOW CEO, Chuck Scott, “We are pleased with PTAB’s decision in this matter.” Scott shared further, “We have and will continue to protect the company’s intellectual property.” Joseph J. Richetti, Bryan Cave, LLP, 20/20NOW’s outside patent counsel added, “We are very glad that the PTAB decided to institute the PGR and agreed that 20/20NOW demonstrated that all of the claims in DigitalOptometrics ‘644 patent are invalid for a number of separate and distinct reasons.” About 20/20NOW For more information contact: 20/20NOW
SOURCE 20/20NOW |
View original content to download multimedia:
