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

Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC

Docket IPR2020-01190, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 22, 2020)
John Hudalla, Juliet Mitchell Dirba, Sheila McShane, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8542113
Patent Owner LBT IP I LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

44 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 44 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)

cite Cite Document

45 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 45 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)
Document:41 Page:1_ Filed: 07/17/2023 GAnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appellee 2022-1613, 2022-1614, 2022-1615, 2022-1616, 2022-1617 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
In accordance with the judgmentof this Court, entered June 9, 2028, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
July 17, 2023 Date
cite Cite Document

42 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Decision

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 42 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)
Petitioner contends that modifying the accelerometer in the combined Sakamoto–Gotoh system to perform Levi’s dead reckoning steps uses a known technique in a similar device to obtain a predictable result, namely, “determining position via acceleration measurements when GPS is unavailable.” Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 202).
In light of these teachings, we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to associate an attenuated signal below a predetermined threshold value (as discussed in claim 1) with antenna shading due to being in a partially or substantially enclosed structure.
For the “primary location tracking circuitry consumes at least reduced power,” Petitioner cites Gronemeyer’s teaching of shutting down certain components during sleep mode, including oscillator 204, radio 202, clocks generator 216, and GPS signal processors 208.
We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected success in making this modification based on Mr. Andrews’s uncontested testimony and because Gronemeyer itself states that the low power time keeping circuit components were “commercially available and relatively inexpensive.” Ex. 1077, 12:62–64; Ex. 1080 ¶¶ 37–39.
Specifically, Petitioner establishes that Gronemeyer teaches a sleep mode where “low power time keeping circuit 200 ‘remains on’ even when ‘[s]elected components residing on the GPS receiver unit’ are ‘shut down (deactivated) to conserve power.’” MTA Opp.
cite Cite Document

41 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 41 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2022)
I'm wondering if maybe that is the -- the part of Patent Owner's argument that's coming to the fore here, which is you have this mapping where you talk about these Sakamoto GPS components as being the primary location tracking circuitry.
MR. SEAL: So our argument is that the claims require that any reduction in power to the primary location tracking circuitry has to preserve the ability to reactivate in response to a signal.
I'll be interested in your surrebuttal time to hear your answer to Judge Dirba's question about where the -- where you've really explored this consumed versus applied issue, because I'm not remembering seeing that in your papers.
JUDGE DIRBA: I have an additional question for you, circling back to the applied versus consumed power discussion that we were having earlier, to try to make sure that I understand your position on that.
So I would -- the answer that I have at this point, Your Honor, is that it is perhaps not as explicit or is easily identified in our Revised Motion to Amend, but the argument is there that the references to Sakamoto, Alberth, and Gronemeyer do not disclose reducing applied power.
cite Cite Document

38 Order Other: Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270a

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 38 Order Other - Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270a (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2021)
The Revised Scheduling Orders (Paper 322) for these proceedings provided that an oral argument would be conducted on January 7, 2022, if requested by the parties and granted by the Board.
The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041, Paper 65 at 2–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Order – Conduct of the Proceeding), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
During the oral hearing, attorneys must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript.
The Board defines a LEAP practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal, including PTAB.4
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
cite Cite Document

32 Order Other: Order Revised Scheduling Order

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 32 Order Other - Order Revised Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2021)
Introduction On October 12, 2021, Patent Owner filed a revised motion to amend (“revised MTA”) in each of these cases.
Once likely declarants are known, the parties should confer as to dates for scheduling all depositions related to the revised MTAs after the relevant papers will be filed.
As needed, the parties may wish to agree to shortened periods for making objections and serving supplemental evidence prior to a deposition.
In the absence of such an agreement, the parties shall schedule such depositions in advance of a due date for serving supplemental evidence.
Thus, the Board strongly encourages the parties to meet and confer as soon as practicable (including before anticipated declarations are submitted, if possible) to coordinate schedules.
cite Cite Document

28 Notice Other: Notice Other

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 28 Notice Other - Notice Other (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2021)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 >>