|By Marketwired .||
|April 23, 2014 05:00 AM EDT||
SAN DIEGO, CA -- (Marketwired) -- 04/23/14 -- Ivera Medical, headquartered in San Diego, CA, announced that on April 16th, 2014 the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) denied a request by Excelsior Medical for rehearing on their previously denied request for an inter partes review of a patent in the port protector space. On February 20, 2014, Ivera announced that the USPTO denied Excelsior's petition for inter partes review and declined to institute trial on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims of US 7,282,186 (Ex. 1001; "the '186 patent"). See that release here:
The USPTO was thorough in its rejection of this request for rehearing saying, in part, "As noted in our Decision, Petitioner failed to direct the Board to any new evidence establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to obviousness over the combination of Sigler and Briggs." Later in its decision, the USPTO stated that Excelsior "may not use a Request for Rehearing to augment its prior, unsuccessful, arguments."
"We are pleased with the decision of the USPTO to deny their request," said Bob Rogers, CEO of Ivera Medical. "This patent is one part of a broad patent portfolio that secures Ivera's leadership in the port protector marketplace. This is the second time Excelsior has unsuccessfully tried to seek an invalidity ruling on this patent and we look forward to a trial this September."
About Ivera Medical
Ivera Medical Corporation, a certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), is focused on the design, development, manufacture, marketing and sale of products that help healthcare providers reduce facility-acquired patient infections. Curos, manufactured in Carlsbad, CA, is the first disinfecting cap to be marketed in the U.S. and has received FDA's 510(k) market clearance. For more information about Curos and Ivera Medical, visit the website at www.curos.com
Vice President, Business Development
Ivera Medical Corp.
In IT, we sometimes coin terms for things before we know exactly what they are and how they’ll be used. The resulting terms may capture a common set of aspirations and goals – as “cloud” did broadly for on-demand, self-service, and flexible computing. But such a term can also lump together diverse and even competing practices, technologies, and priorities to the point where important distinctions are glossed over and lost.
Dec. 10, 2016 11:45 PM EST Reads: 1,794
Dec. 10, 2016 11:15 PM EST Reads: 1,218
Dec. 10, 2016 10:15 PM EST Reads: 2,072
Dec. 10, 2016 09:15 PM EST Reads: 1,354
Dec. 10, 2016 07:30 PM EST Reads: 1,820
Dec. 10, 2016 07:00 PM EST Reads: 4,156
Dec. 10, 2016 06:45 PM EST Reads: 1,105
Dec. 10, 2016 06:30 PM EST Reads: 1,972
Dec. 10, 2016 06:30 PM EST Reads: 1,551
Dec. 10, 2016 06:30 PM EST Reads: 1,034
Dec. 10, 2016 06:15 PM EST Reads: 1,096
Dec. 10, 2016 05:30 PM EST Reads: 1,012
Dec. 10, 2016 05:15 PM EST Reads: 2,384
Dec. 10, 2016 05:15 PM EST Reads: 1,426
Without lifecycle traceability and visibility across the tool chain, stakeholders from Planning-to-Ops have limited insight and answers to who, what, when, why and how across the DevOps lifecycle. This impacts the ability to deliver high quality software at the needed velocity to drive positive business outcomes. In his general session at @DevOpsSummit at 19th Cloud Expo, Phil Hombledal, Solution Architect at CollabNet, discussed how customers are able to achieve a level of transparency that e...
Dec. 10, 2016 04:30 PM EST Reads: 1,374