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

NHK Seating of America, Inc. v. LEAR CORPORATION

Docket IPR2014-01026, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 23, 2014)
Carl DeFranco, Mitchell Weatherly, Neil Powell, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6655733
Petitioner NHK Seating of America, Inc.
Patent Owner LEAR CORPORATION
Petitioner NHK International
...
cite Cite Docket

32 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 32 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)
It has an impact plate 26 that, when it receives a load from a passenger in a rear- end collision, moves rearward and sort of pivots along that A axis and pushes the headrest, which is marked 22, upwards and forwards.
JUDGE WEATHERLY: I think it is implied, but I just want to make sure that I'm understanding, following this clearly, that actions taken in the '955 file history you believe sort of are appropriate for us to consider as being relevant to claims in all three patents?
So on DX- 29 -- JUDGE WEATHERLY: Help me understand how Dr. Viano could use computer software to model movement of a headrest and provide a graph of a trajectory and then essentially say, well, it doesn't really look like that and put some dotted lines on a paper as what it actually means?
MR. HALAN: It has the effect of reducing the forward velocity as any arcuate curve would result -- JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, I prefer to use the term speed so that we can be clear about the scaler quantity versus a vector.
JUDGE WEATHERLY: So the purveyor of the software that enables the modeling, I guess they should be out of business, or is it because they are patent drawings here that makes them special and unreliable for that purpose, according to the Nystrom case that you are citing?
cite Cite Document

33 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 33 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)
Lear, by altering its selected portions of the Specification, ignores the clearly broader description of first and second manner quoted above as referring to any change in forward velocity or trajectory or both.
We find that the preponderance of the evidence of record developed at trial supports our conclusion that NHK has set forth how the alleged prior art teaches or suggests the uncontested limitations of the reviewed claims.
During such a rear end collision the manoeuvering means 10 is subjected to such a large force backwards relative to the frame 9 by the back of the person that it is moved and, with the help of the link arms 12, guided in such a way that the holders 23
Resp. 10–11 (citing Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that because “patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements” the district court erred in determining invalidity based on “models made from [such] drawings.”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (C.C.P.A.
Because of the uncertainties about the internal structure of support 24, Lear argues that Wiklund fails to describe either explicitly or inherently the required two sequential types of contact between the claimed follower and guide member.
cite Cite Document

27 Notice: Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 27 Notice - Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015)

cite Cite Document

10 Notice: Errata

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 10 Notice - Errata (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)
The Decision Instituting Review (Paper 7) entered December 31, 2014, includes the following passage at Page 25, which is incorrect: FURTHER ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted with respect to NHK’s challenge that the combination of Wiklund and Humer renders claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20 unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
Patent 6,665,733 B1 The passage is corrected to read: FURTHER ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted with respect to NHK’s challenge that the combination of Wiklund and Humer renders claims 12, 17, 18, and 21 unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
cite Cite Document

9 Notice: Initial Conferene Summary

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 9 Notice - Initial Conferene Summary (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015)
We also instructed the parties to communicate with each other in an attempt to resolve any disagreements that may require motion practice before contacting the Board for authorization.
The Panel encouraged parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery on their own and in accordance with the precepts set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
In any request for a conference call with the Board to resolve a discovery dispute, the requesting party shall: (a) certify that it has conferred with the other party in an effort to resolve the dispute; (b) identify with specificity the issues for which agreement has not been reached; (c) identify the precise relief to be sought; and (d) propose specific dates and times at which both parties are available for the conference call.
We also reminded the parties that information subject to a protective order will become public if identified in a final written decision in this proceeding, and that a motion to expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over the public interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history.
IPR2014-01026, -01079, and -01101 Patents 6,655,733 B1; 6,631,949 B2; and 6,631,955 B2 We also indicated to the parties that the Board has posted representative decisions relating to Motions to Amend on its website, which is accessible at: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_orders_and_opinions.jsp.
cite Cite Document

7 Institution Decision: Institution Decision

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 7 Institution Decision - Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2014)
Additionally, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently has noted that: To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning.
Anticipation of Claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 by Wiklund The colorized versions of Wiklund’s Figures 2–4 (shown below) illustrate Wiklund’s active head restraint system and the manner in which Wiklund’s headrest moves during a collision.
Patent 6,665,733 B1 argument persuasive because NHK identifies the unnumbered stays (red in the colorized versions of Figs. 3 and 4 above) near the top of holders 23 (pink) to be part of the alleged follower.
Lear reasons that the manner in which Wiklund moves the headrest is “caused” by the coordinated movement of link arms 12 (blue) and frame part 17 (orange) and not extension holders 23 and supports 24 as alleged by NHK.
NHK also identifies the link between the owners of Wiklund and Humer and the commercial product described in both references as a reason that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to incorporate Humer’s damper into Wiklund’s seat.
cite Cite Document

8 Notice: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 8 Notice - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2014)
A notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly filed.
The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.Reg.
For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
The parties are directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to this Scheduling Order and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>