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

EMC Corporation v. CLOUDING CORP

Docket IPR2015-01922, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 16, 2015)
Jameson Lee, Michael Kim, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Patent Owner CLOUDING CORP
Petitioner EMC Corporation
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
...
cite Cite Docket

EMC Corporation v. Clouding Corp.

Docket IPR2014-01309, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 16, 2014)
Jameson Lee, Miriam Quinn, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Petitioner EMC Corporation
Patent Owner Clouding Corp.
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
...
cite Cite Docket

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 5,944,839

Docket IPR2013-00304, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 23, 2013)
Jameson Lee, Joni Chang, Michael Kim, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Petitioner Oracle Corporation
Patent Owner Clouding IP, LLC
cite Cite Docket

Oracle Corporation v. Clouding IP, LLC

Docket IPR2013-00095, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 21, 2012)
Jameson Lee, Joni Chang, Michael Kim, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Petitioner Oracle Corporation
Patent Owner Clouding IP, LLC
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
cite Cite Docket

36 Final Decision: Final Written Decision on Remand

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 36 Final Decision - Final Written Decision on Remand (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)

cite Cite Document

9 Notice: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2015-01922, No. 9 Notice - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2016)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on 09/16/2015 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $14,000 has been refunded to the Petitioner’s deposit account.
Case IPR2015-01922 Patent 5,944,839 The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
For the PATENT OWNER:
cite Cite Document

7 Decision Denying Institution: Decision Denial of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2015-01922, No. 7 Decision Denying Institution - Decision Denial of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.”), cert.
Independent claim 15 similarly recites “when a likely solution to the computer problem does not exist, saving the sensed information as a new case of the plurality of cases” (emphasis added).
Patent 5,944,839 “[f]or unknown faults, the reactive SFM process assists the engineer during the trouble shooting by providing access to relevant information and tools.” (Emphasis added).
Dr. Sacerdoti asserts that “[Douik’s] standard operation entails automatically storing network and traffic data from the telecommunication switches (that is, the state of the distributed computer system).” Ex. 1009 § 40 (citing Ex. 1003, 29:61–64) (emphasis added).
Dr. Sacerdoti further asserts that “[w]hen diagnosing a fault in the computer system in ‘reactive mode,’ Douik saves relevant information in order to provide it to an engineer responsible for effecting the repair.” Ex.
cite Cite Document

34 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 34 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)
Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 teaches or suggests the condition “when a likely solution [to a problem in the computer system] cannot be determined,” as recited in claim 6.
Patent 5,944,839 A fault” and that this is “a situation that is not truly contemplated by Barnett” (PO Resp. 6–7), Petitioner does not contend that it instead relies on Allen ’664 as teaching or suggesting the condition “when a likely solution to a problem [in the computer system] cannot be determined.” See Pet.
Based on this disclosure, Petitioner asserts that “Barnett explicitly contemplates an embodiment in which the diagnostic system would initially fail to determine a likely solution to a fault, but in which its configuration manager nonetheless remains capable of introducing ‘new component types, which require new models and meta-models.’” Pet.
In particular, Dr. Sacerdoti does not provide sufficient factual basis in support of his opinion that Barnett contemplates the situation in which there is an absence of models and meta-models describing the new component types.
Patent 5,944,839 A Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Allen ’664 and Barnett teaches or suggests “when a likely solution cannot be determined,” as recited in claim 6.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 >>