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

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Neodron Ltd.

Docket IPR2020-01119, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 17, 2020)
Christopher Ogden, Miriam Quinn, Patrick Boucher, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7821425
Patent Owner Neodron Ltd.
Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Petitioner Microsoft
...
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.

Docket IPR2020-00778, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Apr. 16, 2020)
Christopher Ogden, Miriam Quinn, Patrick Boucher, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7821425
Patent Owner Neodron Ltd.
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Petitioner Samsung Electronics
...
cite Cite Docket

10 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2020-01119, No. 10 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2021)
Petitioner and Patent Owner (collectively “the Parties”) have requested that the above-identified joined inter partes review proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement.
On February 1, 2021, we authorized the Parties, via email, to file a joint motion to terminate the joined proceeding.
The Parties also requested that the Settlement Agreements be treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the file of Patent 7,821,425.
We determine that good cause exists to treat the Settlement Agreements as business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motion is granted, and that IPR2020-00778 is hereby terminated and IPR2020-01119 (the joined proceeding) is closed;
cite Cite Document

17 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2020-00778, No. 17 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2021)
Petitioner and Patent Owner (collectively “the Parties”) have requested that the above-identified joined inter partes review proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement.
On February 1, 2021, we authorized the Parties, via email, to file a joint motion to terminate the joined proceeding.
The Parties also requested that the Settlement Agreements be treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the file of Patent 7,821,425.
We determine that good cause exists to treat the Settlement Agreements as business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motion is granted, and that IPR2020-00778 is hereby terminated and IPR2020-01119 (the joined proceeding) is closed;
cite Cite Document

8 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2020-01119, No. 8 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020)
For the reasons that follow, we institute inter partes review, and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief.
No changes in the schedule are anticipated or necessary, and the limited participation, if at all, of Petitioner will not impact the timeline of the ongoing trial.
FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2020-00778, from now on, shall reflect joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the attached example.
Therefore the caption here has been updated to reflect that these Samsung entities are joined as Petitioner in this proceeding.
cite Cite Document

12 Order: DECISIONInstitution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder35 USC ¿¿ 31437 CFR ¿¿ 42122b

Document IPR2020-00778, No. 12 Order - DECISIONInstitution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder35 USC ¿¿ 31437 CFR ¿¿ 42122b (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020)
For the reasons that follow, we institute inter partes review, and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief.
No changes in the schedule are anticipated or necessary, and the limited participation, if at all, of Petitioner will not impact the timeline of the ongoing trial.
FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2020-00778, from now on, shall reflect joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the attached example.
Therefore the caption here has been updated to reflect that these Samsung entities are joined as Petitioner in this proceeding.
cite Cite Document

11 Order: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2020-00778, No. 11 Order - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2020)
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 further directed to the Board’s Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products (https://go.usa.gov/xU6YV), and Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential).
The Board defines a LEAP practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal,
Patent 7,821,425 B2 including PTAB, and seven (7) or fewer years of experience as a licensed attorney or agent.3 The Board encourages parties to participate in its LEAP program.
In exchange, the Board will grant up to fifteen minutes of additional argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and the PTAB’s hearing schedule.
cite Cite Document

10 Decision Granting Institution: DECISIONGranting Institution of Inter Partes Revi...

Document IPR2020-00778, No. 10 Decision Granting Institution - DECISIONGranting Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2020)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 >>