Paper Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571.272.7822 Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD"

Transcription

1 Paper Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE, INC., Petitioner, v. CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Patent Owner. Case CBM Before JAMESON LEE, JENNIFER S. BISK, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review 37 C.F.R A. Background I. INTRODUCTION Apple, Inc. ( Petitioner ) filed a Petition (Paper 1, Pet. ) requesting a covered business method patent review of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, and 22 ( challenged claims ) of U.S. Patent No. 8,583,556 B2 (Ex. 1001, the

2 556 Patent ). ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. ( Patent Owner ) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 ( Prelim. Resp. ). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 324(a), 1 which provides that a covered business method patent review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition... if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. 324(a). For the reasons that follow, the Petition is denied. B. Related Matters Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the 556 Patent has been asserted against Petitioner in the following district court case: ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-1112 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; see ContentGuard Holdings Inc. s Amended Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(2) ( Patent Owner Notice, Paper 9). Petitioner and Patent Owner also identify additional proceedings involving the same patent as follows: IPR , IPR , CBM (terminated), CBM (terminated), and CBM Pet. 2; Patent Owner Notice. C. The 556 Patent The 556 Patent is directed to a system and method for monitoring the transfer of digital assets within a network. 2 Ex. 1001, 9: As background, according to the 556 Patent, with the advent of the Internet, 1 See Section 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No , 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) ( AIA ). 2 In a preferred embodiment, the digital asset is an audio file in MP3 format. Ex. 1001, 9:

3 digital assets protected by intellectual property rights can now be reproduced and distributed without quality degradation or compensation to the rights holders. Id. at 1: The main difficulty has been monetizing the distribution transactions and paying royalties to the rights holders of the digital assets being traded. Id. at 9: In that regard, the 556 Patent states: This is in large part because there is no mechanism currently to track the assets as they are transferred. Id. at 9: According to the 556 Patent, it presents a new way of controlling the distribution, royalty payment, and terms of use for these digital assets, that is an improvement over various other existing ways of doing the same. Ex. 1001, 1:27 2:4. In particular, one key purpose is to allow individual customers to trade digital assets with each other while compensating rights holders for their work, and its system allows each digital asset to be identified and tracked at the time the asset is transferred. Id. at 10: In that connection, the 556 Patent states: [A] preferred embodiment of the present invention retains the advantages of a peer-to-peer distribution [system] while marking each distributed asset for later identification at the time of transfer, linking the asset to specific usage rights, and providing for royalty compensation to the Rights Holder of the asset. Id. at 9: The system and method includes a process that introduces assets for sale or trade into the system, and a process that involves actual purchase, trade, and tracking. Ex. 1001, 11: Upon requested transfer of a digital asset, a separate instantiation of the digital asset is created and given a new serial number that permits subsequent tracking of each transfer or transaction. Id. at 14:29 38; 15: When the transfer is complete, an account of the customer who just received the digital asset is debited, and a 3

4 transaction database is updated with all the necessary tracking information, including the new serial number of the instance of the digital asset just transferred to the customer whose account is debited. Id. at 15: D. Illustrative Claims Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims and are reproduced below. 1. A method implemented by one or more computing devices for providing a digital asset for distribution, the method comprising: storing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the digital asset, the digital asset including digital content; associating, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, an asset identifier with the digital asset to thereby generate a first instance of the digital asset, the asset identifier identifying the digital asset; receiving from a user, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, an acceptance of terms of use of digital assets; providing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a list of one or more digital assets to the user, the list including the digital asset; receiving from the user, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a request for the digital asset; in response to the request for the digital asset, creating, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a second instance of the digital asset for transfer to the user device, the second instance of the digital asset including content and at least one other portion, and embedding in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset at least a customer identification associated with the user and the asset identifier, wherein other instances of the digital asset have customer identifications embedded therein and the customer identifications are used to track instances of the digital asset; 4

5 detecting, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a transfer of the second instance of the digital asset to the user based at least in part on the customer identification; debiting an account of the user related to the transfer of the second instance of the digital media asset to the user, and updating, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a transaction database to reflect a transfer of the second instance of the digital media asset to the user. Ex. 1001, 20:50 21: A computer system for providing a digital asset for distribution, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories operatively coupled to at least one of the one or more processors and having instructions stored therein that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause at least one of the one or more processors to: store the digital asset, the digital asset including digital content; associate an asset identifier with the digital asset to thereby generate a first instance of the digital asset, the asset identifier identifying the digital asset; receive from a user an acceptance of terms of use of digital assets; provide a list of one or more digital assets to a user, the list including the digital asset; receive from the user a request for digital asset; in response to the request for the digital asset, create a second instance of the digital asset for transfer to a user device, the second instance of the digital asset including digital content and at least one other portion, and embedding in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset at least a customer identification associated with the user and the asset identifier, wherein other instances of the digital asset have 5

6 customer identifications embedded therein and the customer identifications are used to track instances of the digital asset; detect a transfer of the second instance of the digital content to the user based at least in part on the customer identification; debit an account of the user related to the transfer of the second instance of the digital media asset to the user; and update a transaction database to reflect a transfer of the second instance of the digital media asset to the user. Id. at 21:58 22:27. E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Petitioner challenges the claims of the 556 Patent on the following grounds. Pet. 3. Basis Claims 35 U.S.C , Written Description 1, 9, 11, 12, 20, and U.S.C , Indefiniteness 8 and U.S.C , 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, and 22 II. ANALYSIS A. Financial Product or Service A covered business method patent is a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions. AIA 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R (a). The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of C.F.R (a). 6

7 As Petitioner notes, claim 1 recites debiting an account, which plainly refers to a financial transaction. Pet. 5. Petitioner also notes [c]laim 12 is the mirror image of claim 1. Id. at 5 n.1. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner s contention. Prelim. Resp We, therefore, determine that the 556 Patent meets the financial product or service requirement under 18(d)(1) of the AIA. Accordingly, we turn to whether Petitioner has demonstrated that the 556 Patent is not a patent for a technological invention. B. Technological Invention To determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution. 37 C.F.R (b). Petitioner states, [t]he analysis of whether the patent claims a technological invention is applied to the same claim as the financial transaction prong[,] because [o]nly one claim of the patent needs to meet the financial-and-not-technological test for the patent to qualify for CBM review. Pet. 9 n.2 (citing SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., Case CBM , slip op. at (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) (Paper 36)). Petitioner, therefore, provides contentions regarding claim 1 of the 556 Patent. Pet Regarding claim 1, Petitioner contends that each of the seven limitations between the preamble and the debiting an account of the user limitation includes the generic phrase by at least one of the one or more computing devices ( the seven limitations ). Pet (citing Ex. 1001, 7

8 20:53 21:17). Petitioner asserts that claim 1 says nothing specific about particular or novel attributes of these computing devices[.] Id. at 10. Petitioner additionally points to discussion in the background section of the 556 Patent, which Petitioner contends describes two of the seven limitations, i.e., an acceptance of the terms of use of digital assets and associating... an asset identifier with the digital asset... the asset identifier identifying the digital asset[.] Id. at Petitioner also asserts that the updating, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a transaction database to reflect a transfer of the second instance of the digital media asset to the user limitation is the mere recitation of known technologies databases. Id. at Petitioner, however, does not address the details of the remaining four of the seven limitations, instead referring to the bulk of claim 1 as [t]he financial transaction limitations. Id. at Regarding the seven limitations, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has not addressed the[ ] technical aspects in its CBM eligibility analysis, much less established that they are old or obvious. Prelim. Resp. 13. In particular, Patent Owner contends, [n]otably, [claim 1] specifies creating a second instance of a digital asset, embedding at least a customer identification associated with the user, and detecting a transfer of the second instance of the digital asset to the user based at least in part on the customer identification. Id. at 7. Patent Owner indicates that these are interrelated novel technical features (id. at 13), and, when considered as a whole, make the challenge claims of the 556 patent ineligible for a covered business method patent review (id. at 5). 8

9 Patent Owner additionally contends that the limitations of claim 1 provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Id. at 13. In particular, Patent Owner points to the steps of creating... a second instance of the digital asset for transfer to the user device, embedding in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset at least a customer identification associated with the user and the asset identifier, and detecting... a transfer of the second instance of the digital asset to the user based at least in part on the customer identification, recited in claim 1. Id. at 15. Patent Owner contends that, because these [computer-implemented] steps are interrelated, they provide a specific technical solution to a technical problem. Id. at We are persuaded that, contrary to Petitioner s contentions (Pet. 7 12), claim 1 recites specific steps for a particular way of tracking digital assets in a network. Indeed, claim 1 recites specific steps that are a combination of hardware and software. For example, claim 1 recites steps performed by a computing device, including: associating... an asset identifier with the digital asset to thereby generate a first instance of the digital asset, the asset identifier identifying the digital asset[,] creating... a second instance of the digital asset for transfer to the user device, the second instance of the digital asset including content and at least one other portion, and embedding in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset at least a customer identification associated with the user and the asset identifier, wherein other instances of the digital asset have customer identifications embedded therein and the customer identifications are used to track instances of the digital asset. Ex. 1001, 20:56 21:11. Claim 1 further recites that the computing device subsequently tracks the digital asset by detecting... a transfer of the 9

10 second instance of the digital asset to the user based at least in part on the customer identification. Id. at 21: Petitioner s analysis regarding whether the claimed subject matter of the 556 Patent, as a whole, recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art is conclusory and fails to address the abovenoted technical features. Pet Petitioner narrowly focuses on the one or more computing devices recited in claim 1 and does not address adequately the specific software steps performed by the claimed computing device(s). Id. at Petitioner s assertion that two of seven limitations recited in claim 1 are mentioned in the background section (id. at 11 12) also is inadequate because it doesn t account for the claim as a whole. In fact, other than concluding that [c]laim 1 thus does not claim subject matter as a whole [that] recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution, Petitioner does not even mention the claimed subject matter as a whole, but instead merely points to discrete pieces of the claim, each taken out of context and dissected separately. Id. at 12. We additionally note that Petitioner does not provide expert testimony in support of its contentions. Id. at Furthermore, Petitioner fails to address persuasively whether the 556 Patent solves a technical problem using a technical solution. Pet Petitioner points to Board guidance that certain claim drafting techniques do not render a patent a technological invention. Id. at 8 (citing SAP America, Case CBM , slip op. at (Paper 36); 77 Fed. Reg. 3 We note that claim 12 recites similar limitations. 10

11 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48,763 48,764). However, we are not persuaded that the technical features in the claim reflect merely the application of claim drafting techniques. Petitioner has not shown the limitations in the challenged claims of the 556 Patent are simply generic functions that are capable of being performed by a general purpose computer. The solution depends on, or is integral to, having all the above-noted specific structures and functions. In our view, the challenged claims require more than generally monetizing or tracking distribution of copies of digital assets. Consequently, Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the claimed subject matter of the 556 Patent is not a technological invention. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 556 Patent is eligible for review as a covered business method patent under AIA 18(d)(1). IV. For the reasons given, it is ORDER ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the 556 Patent; and FURTHER ORDERED that no covered business method patent review is instituted. 11

12 PETITIONER: Jeffrey Kushan Michael Franzinger PATENT OWNER: Thomas Lebens Timothy Maloney Robert Cote 12

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EXPERIAN MARKETING SOLUTIONS, INC. and EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT,

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SALESFORCE.COM, INC., Petitioner, v. APPLICATIONS IN

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571-272-7822 Entered: February 25, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571-272-7822 Entered: February 25, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571-272-7822 Entered: February 25, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Petitioner v. PROGRESSIVE

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE

More information

Trial@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trial@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trial@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Petitioner, v. 5th MARKET,

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 40 571-272-7822 Entered: January 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 40 571-272-7822 Entered: January 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 40 571-272-7822 Entered: January 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NAT L ASS

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Date: May 11, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Date: May 11, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Date: May 11, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., Petitioner, v. VIRNETX INC., Patent Owner. Case

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571.272.7822 Entered: May 4, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571.272.7822 Entered: May 4, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571.272.7822 Entered: May 4, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.

More information

COMMENTARY. Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings

COMMENTARY. Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings SEPTEMBER 2015 COMMENTARY Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings The inter partes review ( IPR ) statute authorizes a patent owner ( PO ) to file, after an IPR has been instituted, one

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: July 31, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: July 31, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: July 31, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARRIS GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES,

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioner v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent Owner

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IDLE FREE SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner, v. BERGSTROM, INC. Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Petitioner Trials@uspto.gov Paper 53 571-272-7822 Entered: March 13, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Petitioner v. PROGRESSIVE

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT PARSONS, WARREN ADELMAN, MICHAEL CHADWICK and ERIC WAGNER Appeal 2012-004664 Technology Center 2400 Before

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 571-272-7822 Entered: March 27, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 571-272-7822 Entered: March 27, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 571-272-7822 Entered: March 27, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSTRATEGY, INC. Petitioner v. ZILLOW, INC. Patent Owner

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION E-WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-12-3314 LOREX CANADA, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending before the

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Date Entered: August 26, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Date Entered: August 26, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Date Entered: August 26, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC. Petitioner v. UNIVERSAL

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 28, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 28, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 28, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC Petitioner

More information

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Issues for AIA Reviews

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Issues for AIA Reviews CLIENT MEMORANDUM In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review February 5, 2015 AUTHORS Michael W. Johnson Tara L. Thieme THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: 16 May 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: 16 May 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: 16 May 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioners, v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte ROBERT WEBER and NISHITH PATEL

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte ROBERT WEBER and NISHITH PATEL UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT WEBER and NISHITH PATEL Appeal 2012-002460 Technology Center 1600 Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN,

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 5 571-272-7822 Date: June 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 5 571-272-7822 Date: June 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 5 571-272-7822 Date: June 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioner, v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 571-272-7822 Entered: December 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 571-272-7822 Entered: December 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 571-272-7822 Entered: December 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SENSUS USA, INC., Petitioner, v. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAP AMERICA, INC., Petitioner v. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM Patent Owner.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAP AMERICA, INC., Petitioner v. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM Patent Owner. Trials@uspto.gov Paper 69 No. 10 571-272-7822 Date Entered: November 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAP AMERICA, INC., Petitioner v. LAKSHMI

More information

Attorney Docket No. 041882-0000028 PATENT IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Attorney Docket No. 041882-0000028 PATENT IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Attorney Docket No. 041882-0000028 PATENT IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inventor: Glen Douglas Johnson Case No.: Unassigned Patent No.: 5,924,080 Application No.: 08/654,057 For: COMPUTERIZED

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 96 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 96 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 96 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CORNING INCORPORATED Petitioner v. DSM IP ASSETS B.V.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte FRANZ LECHNER and HELMUT STEFFENINI

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte FRANZ LECHNER and HELMUT STEFFENINI UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANZ LECHNER and HELMUT STEFFENINI Appeal 2012-012349 1 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD

More information

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Paper No. 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RPX Corporation, Petitioner, v. VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corporation, Patent Owner

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 09/982,337 10/18/2001 Todd Ouzts MFCP.

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 09/982,337 10/18/2001 Todd Ouzts MFCP. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte RONALD W. HALL, DARYL T. BURKHARD, and HARRY B. TAYLOR Appeal 2010-002475 Technology Center 2600

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte SHERI L. MCGUIRE, THOMAS E. TAYLOR, and BRIAN EMANUEL Appeal 2009-002177 Technology Center 1700 Decided:

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Apple Inc. Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Apple Inc. Petitioner, Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Apple Inc. Petitioner, v. VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corporation, Patent Owner Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 17 571.272.7822 Filed: April 22, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PROTEGRITY

More information

Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 33934. Exhibit G

Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 33934. Exhibit G Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 33934 Exhibit G Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 33935 Paper No. 7 UNITED STATES PATENT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF ) TECHNOLOGY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 15-10374-FDS ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ) APPLE, INC.; ELPIDA

More information

Inter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. October 8, 2015

Inter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. October 8, 2015 Inter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board October 8, 2015 Today s presenters Mike Stimson Norton Rose Fulbright San Antonio, Texas Brandy Nolan Norton Rose Fulbright Dallas,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NIRMAL MUKUND KARI, SCOTT WILLIAM PETRICK, and CHRISTOPHER UNGER Appeal 2011-002161 Technology Center 2600 Before

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, E*TRADE SECURITIES,

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner v. PROXYCONN, INC. Patent

More information

Best Corporate Practices in Patent Litigation Defense and Offense

Best Corporate Practices in Patent Litigation Defense and Offense Best Corporate Practices in Patent Litigation Defense and Offense Ending Defensive Litigation Quickly and Cheaply and Maximizing Patent Value Joseph J. Berghammer Binal J. Patel MARCH 2015 Joe Berghammer

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 18, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 18, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 18, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., Petitioner, v. NETLIST,

More information

Trial@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trial@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trial@uspto.gov -- UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Petitioner, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Patent Owner,

More information

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Petitioner

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Petitioner `UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Petitioner v. LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC Patent Owner Case IPR. No. Unassigned U.S. Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JORDI ALBORNOZ

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JORDI ALBORNOZ UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JORDI ALBORNOZ Appeal 2009-012862 Technology Center 3600 Before, JAMES D. THOMAS, ANTON W. FETTING

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte B. REILLY BARRY, MARK A. CHODORONEK, ERIC DEROSE, CAROL Y. DEVINE, MARK N. STUDNESS, ANGELA R. JAMES,

More information

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/751,277 05/21/2007 Larry Bert Brenner AUS920070464US1 1721

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/751,277 05/21/2007 Larry Bert Brenner AUS920070464US1 1721 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte DWIGHT D. RILEY Appeal 2009-013823 1 Technology Center 2400 Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, JASON V.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Filed on behalf of Delaware Display Group LLC By: Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com) Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com) Bragalone Conroy P.C. Tel: 214.785.6670 Fax: 214.786.6680 UNITED

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte VINCENT HOLTZ and JEAN SIEFFERT

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte VINCENT HOLTZ and JEAN SIEFFERT UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINCENT HOLTZ and JEAN SIEFFERT Appeal 2011-005241 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. BMC Software, Inc.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. BMC Software, Inc. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner v. BMC Software, Inc. Patent Owner Filing Date: February 28, 2003 Issue Date: November 10,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte GRIGORY L. ARAUZ and STEVEN E.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte GRIGORY L. ARAUZ and STEVEN E. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte GRIGORY L. ARAUZ and STEVEN E. BUCHANAN Appeal 2010-002331 Technology Center 3600 Before: MICHAEL

More information

PTAB Rearranging the Face of Patent Litigation

PTAB Rearranging the Face of Patent Litigation PTAB Rearranging the Face of Patent Litigation By Thomas King 1 and Jeffrey Wolfson 2 It has been over a year since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) began directly accepting petitions from third

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte XINTIAN MING and STEPHEN J.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte XINTIAN MING and STEPHEN J. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte XINTIAN MING and STEPHEN J. ROTHENBURGER Appeal 2010-002172 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte CHRISTOPHER H. ELVING and ARVIND SRINIVASAN

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte CHRISTOPHER H. ELVING and ARVIND SRINIVASAN UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte CHRISTOPHER H. ELVING and ARVIND SRINIVASAN Appeal 2009-007359 1 Technology Center 2400 Decided:

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal

More information

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Scott Christie, Psy.D. (OI File No. H-12-42635-9) Petitioner, v. The Inspector General. Docket No. C-14-88 Decision

More information

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/304,776 11/26/2002 Jouni Ylitalo 800.0882.

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/304,776 11/26/2002 Jouni Ylitalo 800.0882. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte TATSUO NAKAJIMA, ARITO MATSUI, TAKASHI NISHIMOTO, GO ITOHYA, HAJIME ASAI, and TSUNEO TAKANO Appeal

More information

Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules. Inter Partes Review

Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules. Inter Partes Review Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules Inter Partes Review Presented By: Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Co-Chairs of Post Grant Practice, Fish

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Every Penny Counts, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-042 Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Bank of America Corporation, and Bank of America,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LOUIS CLAY, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee

More information

Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DR. MARC L. KOZAM * d/b/a MLK SOFTWARE, et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. CIVIL

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 IPR2013-00194, Paper 72 IPR2013-00195, Paper 65 CBM2013-00013, Paper 67 CBM2014-00018, Paper 32 Date Entered: December 5, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE

More information

Matter of Marcos Victor ORDAZ-Gonzalez, Respondent

Matter of Marcos Victor ORDAZ-Gonzalez, Respondent Matter of Marcos Victor ORDAZ-Gonzalez, Respondent Decided July 24, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals A notice to appear that was served

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 30 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 30 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 30 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NHK SEATING OF AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. LEAR

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-3036 ELIZABETH ANN WATERS, v. Petitioner, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Elizabeth A. Waters, of

More information

REASONS FOR DECISION

REASONS FOR DECISION BL O/361/04 PATENTS ACT 1977 9 December 2004 APPLICANT Epic Systems Corporation ISSUE Whether patent application number GB 0415595.8 complies with section 1(2) HEARING OFFICER G M Rogers REASONS FOR DECISION

More information

INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER: US DECISION PLACES MIXED CLAIMS IN JEOPARDY. by Christopher J. Palermo (Foreign Member)

INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER: US DECISION PLACES MIXED CLAIMS IN JEOPARDY. by Christopher J. Palermo (Foreign Member) Christopher J. Palermo Hickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP 2055 Gateway Place Suite 550 San Jose, California 95110 USA Tel. +1-408-414-1202 - cpalermo@hptb-law.com 1,800 words INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER:

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte MARTIN JAN SOUKUP, ANOOP NANNRA, and MARTIN MEIER

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte MARTIN JAN SOUKUP, ANOOP NANNRA, and MARTIN MEIER 0 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN JAN SOUKUP, ANOOP NANNRA, and MARTIN MEIER Appeal 0-00 Application /, Technology Center 00 Before MURRIEL

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS, INC. Petitioner. BROADBAND itv, INC.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS, INC. Petitioner. BROADBAND itv, INC. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS, INC. Petitioner BROADBAND itv, INC. Patent Owner Case IPR2014 01222 Patent No. 7,631,336 PATENT OWNER

More information

ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. SLATER, SEC- RETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. SLATER, SEC- RETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. 216 OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. SLATER, SEC- RETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

More information

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/335,056 01/18/2006 Richard James Casler JR.

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/335,056 01/18/2006 Richard James Casler JR. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

PRE-INSTITUTION AT PTAB: OBTAINING A DENIAL IS A PATENT OWNER WIN. Part 2: Substantive Bases of Challenge 1

PRE-INSTITUTION AT PTAB: OBTAINING A DENIAL IS A PATENT OWNER WIN. Part 2: Substantive Bases of Challenge 1 PRE-INSTITUTION AT PTAB: OBTAINING A DENIAL IS A PATENT OWNER WIN Part 2: Substantive Bases of Challenge 1 by Kerry Flynn, 2 Stacy Lewis, 3 Tom Irving 4 The authors also wish to acknowledge the contributions

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1309 (Serial No. 75/530,795) IN RE REED ELSEVIER PROPERTIES INC. J. Paul Williamson, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO Appeal 2009-002699 Technology Center 2800 Decided: August 7, 2009 Before BEVERLY A.

More information

INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS. Ronald T. Welch, et al. v. Minneapolis Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs 17 IBIA 56 (01/30/1989)

INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS. Ronald T. Welch, et al. v. Minneapolis Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs 17 IBIA 56 (01/30/1989) INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS Ronald T. Welch, et al. v. Minneapolis Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs 17 IBIA 56 (01/30/1989) Reversing: 16 IBIA 180 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3218 ELADIO S. CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Eladio S. Camacho,

More information

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-41 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RUSSELL CLIFFORD MULLEN AND JOAN

More information

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 14206 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * * *

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 14206 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * * * Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 14206 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, on

More information

Patent Litigation Strategy: The Impact of the America Invents Act and the New Post-grant Patent Procedures

Patent Litigation Strategy: The Impact of the America Invents Act and the New Post-grant Patent Procedures Patent Litigation Strategy: The Impact of the America Invents Act and the New Post-grant Patent Procedures Eric S. Walters and Colette R. Verkuil, Morrison & Foerster LLP This Article discusses litigation

More information

Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SPINE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

More information

Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson Sheldon, Richard D. Holzheimer, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson Sheldon, Richard D. Holzheimer, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs. United States District Court, D. Maryland. Dr. Marc L. KOZAM d/b/a MLK Software, et al, Plaintiffs. v. PHASE FORWARD INCORPORATED, et al, Defendants. Aug. 29, 2005. Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KAREN L. WILLIS, Appellant, v. CAN T STOP PRODUCTIONS, INC., Appellee. 2012-1109 (Cancellation Nos. 92051213

More information

T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER

More information

Automatic Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review?: A Simple Proposal for Solving the Patent Troll Riddle

Automatic Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review?: A Simple Proposal for Solving the Patent Troll Riddle Automatic Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review?: A Simple Proposal for Solving the Patent Troll Riddle A Simple Proposal for Solving the Patent Troll Riddle By Eric W. Schweibenz, Robert C. Mattson,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON Appeal 2010-002383 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E.

More information

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/331,558 01/15/2006 Hui Hu 2713

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/331,558 01/15/2006 Hui Hu 2713 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/958,191 10/04/2004 Ruth E. Bauhahn 151P11719USU1 1458

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/958,191 10/04/2004 Ruth E. Bauhahn 151P11719USU1 1458 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Finjan, Inc., Petitioner v. FireEye, Inc.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Finjan, Inc., Petitioner v. FireEye, Inc. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Finjan, Inc., Petitioner v. FireEye, Inc., Patent Owner Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00344 Filing Date: January 14,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-3233 WILLIAM O. MEEK, Petitioner, v.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JOEL E. SHORT, FREDERIC DELLY, MARK F. LOGAN, and DANIEL TOOMEY Appeal 2009-002481 1 Technology Center

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BARBARA DICKERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 4:03 CV 341 DDN DEACONESS LONG TERM CARE OF MISSOURI, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM

More information

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00815-CV IN THE ESTATE OF Alvilda Mae AGUILAR From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012-PC-2802 Honorable

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Appellant v. GOOGLE, INC., Appellee 2014-1351 Appeal from the United States Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte MARTIN FREEBORN and VINCE BURKHART

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte MARTIN FREEBORN and VINCE BURKHART UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN FREEBORN and VINCE BURKHART Appeal 2013-002790 1 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO

More information