• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
80 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

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

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

4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition

Document IPR2015-01922, No. 4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2015)
The petition for inter partes review in the above proceeding has been accorded the filing date of September 16, 2015.
For more information, please consult the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.
The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause.
Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under “Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” 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.
cite Cite Document

8 Refund Request: 20160707 Petitioners Request for Refund

Document IPR2015-01922, No. 8 Refund Request - 20160707 Petitioners Request for Refund (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2016)
On March 16, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of IPR2015-01922 (Paper No. 7).
Accordingly, please refund the fee submitted pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.15(a)(2) of $14,000.00 to Deposit Account No. 15-0665.
cite Cite Document

1 Petition: Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 5,944,839

Document IPR2015-01922, No. 1 Petition - Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 5,944,839 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2015)
Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have understood at the time of the invention of the ’839 Patent that an advantage of prior art Artificial Intelligence techniques – including case-based reasoning – “is that the system can evolve more efficiently as new knowledge is added and stored in the light of operational experience.” (Ex. 1003 at 9:50-53); (Ex. 1009, ¶ 12).
Assuming the alarm is caused by a new computer problem, additional data is gathered (for example, by test tools 169), “the fault type is identified and a preliminary list of suspect components is issued at 171.” (Id. at 36:53-61); (see Ex. 1004 at 133-135).
Thus, as described above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the Douik Patent to teach an AI Engine that uses cases to determine the likely solution to a detected computer problem.
“For unknown faults, the reactive SFM process assists the engineer during the trouble shooting by providing access to relevant information and tools” – i.e., the new case in which the gathered data was saved.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand that a CBR system will “learn from experience” and “build up an episodic memory” by saving the gathered data as a new case when the knowledge database does not describe a likely solution to the computer problem.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 >>