• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
221 results

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2021-00920, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 21, 2021)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, Kristi Sawert, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Petitioner Google
...
cite Cite Docket

Unified Patents, LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2021-00917, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 14, 2021)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, Kristi Sawert, Scott Raevsky, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC
cite Cite Docket

32 Order Other: Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR § 425

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 32 Order Other - Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR § 425 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2022)
a. BACKGROUND FACTS The Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (“the ’431 patent”) in the present case was filed on March 14, 2021.
Patent Owner argued that the identity of Petitioner’s members was material to the analysis of whether or not to institute the present inter partes review.
Thus, Patent Owner chose to exclude real party-in- interest and privity as issues to be addressed during the trial phase of the present proceeding.
Even if we were to go back to October, when Patent Owner first made its request, at that time all briefs from the parties had been submitted and the oral hearing had been conducted.
Patent Owner reasons that the Board can order Petitioner to provide discovery regarding its relationship with Samsung.
cite Cite Document

28 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 28 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2022)
If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] ... the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Patent Owner argues that “Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis of a target object and control the computer, so it does not teach or suggest ‘determining’ finger movement from reflected light that is ‘electro-optically’ sensed using one ‘sensor means,’ as set forth in [the] claim.” PO Resp. 13.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the determining movement claim element.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the computer means claim element.
Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s fifth embodiment teaches a “conference record system” or TV telephone and that “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement this transmission functionality in the portable device described in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment.” Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:6–16, 40:16–49; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 50–52, 58): id. at 33–34.
cite Cite Document

27 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 27 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2022)
So in a high precision application like controlling objects in a laptop environment such as is depicted in Numazaki in the 8th embodiment Dr. Bederson analyzed the benefits of maybe adding a ring to improve detection.
Patent 7,933,431 B2 8,553,079 B2 embodiments you’re relying on here in figure 8 are laptops and palm tops and they all seem to show a, you know, a gesture that’s fairly close to the device which kind of makes sense because it’s taking, you know, a picture which has to be illuminated to do this difference.
As we see on DX-4, claims 1, 7 and 14 each recite some form of imaging that captures movement of an object such as a user’s finger so that the user can perform device control through hand gestures and as we saw in the ‘079 proceeding, we are relying on Numazaki’s 8th embodiment to satisfy those limitations.
Patent Owner did not elaborate on how reducing video frames to one hundredth the original size would have no impact on the overall bandwidth and that’s simply a technically illogical conclusion to reach.
Your Honor asked a pointed question what evidence has Patent Owner presented in this case that rebuts Dr. Bederson’s analysis of Numazaki’s 5th embodiment and its conclusion that the portable TV telephone is in fact a cell phone.
cite Cite Document

31 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Strike 35 USC § 318a

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 31 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable Denying Petitioner’s Motion...
Patent Owner does not address this term in its claim construction section (PO Resp. 6–11), but later argues that a “more accurate function is ‘analyzing the image obtained by the camera means to determine information concerning a position or movement of an object’” (id. at 33).
Patent 7,933,431 B2 image using reflected light of at least one object, as the structure corresponding to the camera means limitation includes at least electro- optical sensors, such as those disclosed in Numazaki.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–150).
We further determine that Petitioner’s argument and evidence shows what one of skill would understand that Numazaki teaches that the feature data generation unit is implemented in a general purpose computer.
Cousins is directed to “a multi-purpose portable imaging device” where “[t]he device is small enough to be hand-held ... and has embedded on its surface at least one sensor.” Cousins’ system further involves sending the “energy received from the sensors ... to an advanced computer” where “[t]he data is processed.” Ex. 1006, Abst.
Petitioner first argues that Cousins provides an explicit motivation to combine because “Cousins states that its imaging device can be used with hand gestures for input to a computer,” which is the focus of Doi.
cite Cite Document

30 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 30 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2022)
If at any time during the proceeding you encounter technical or other difficulties that you feel fundamentally undermines your ability to adequately represent your client, please let us know immediately, for example, by contacting the team members who provided you with connection information.
For example, Magnum Oil Tools says, A patentee bears the burden of establishing that its claimed invention is entitled to an earlier priority date than an asserted prior art reference.
So, in the case of attempted antedating, the burden of production is on the Patent Owner to show with evidence and argument that the earlier document provides written description and an enabling disclosure of the claimed subject matter.
The Board should be suspect of any argument by this Petitioner that Dr. Pryor did not conceive of the claimed invention before the effective date of Rhoads and -- or that he did not exercise reasonably continuous diligence over only ten days through constructive reduction of practice.
Patent Owner's counsel also indicated that our expert's testimony was conclusory on this point, but I believe if Your Honors will refer to Exhibit 1034, which is our Reply Declaration, Mr. Schmandt went into quite a bit of detail about why component-level structure was appropriate for this limitation, and that's consistent with his other arguments as well.
cite Cite Document

26 Order Other: Order Panel Change Order

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 26 Order Other - Order Panel Change Order (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2022)
Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Acting Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceeding.
Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Scott Raevsky replaces Administrative Patent Judge Joni Y. Chang on the panel.
Thus, Administrative Patent Judges Kevin F. Turner, Brent M. Dougal, and Scott Raevsky now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in this proceeding.
All prior decisions and orders remain in effect.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 >>