RE:RE:IPA vs MicrosoftCabbieJBJ,
This is the term usually found in the IPR legal document.
In this case, there is a footnote 24 attached.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 61, 62, and 64–85 of the ’115 patent are unpatentable on the bases set forth in the following table, but has not shown that claim 63 of the ’115 patent is unpatentable.24
24 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this Final Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg. 16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
W