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

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.

Docket IPR2022-01559, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 23, 2022)
Jameson Lee, Kristina Kalan, Michelle Wormmeester, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7825537
Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd.
Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Google LLC v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.

Docket IPR2022-00683, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 8, 2022)
Brian McNamara, Jameson Lee, Karl Easthom, Kristina Kalan, Michelle Wormmeester, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7825537
Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd.
Petitioner Google LLC
Petitioner Samsung Electronics
...
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.

Docket IPR2022-00573, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 10, 2022)
Brian McNamara, Jameson Lee, Karl Easthom, Kristina Kalan, Michelle Wormmeester, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7825537
Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd.
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a Ankerdirect v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.

Docket IPR2022-00499, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 1, 2022)
Brian McNamara, Jameson Lee, Karl Easthom, Kristina Kalan, Michelle Wormmeester, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7825537
Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd.
Petitioner Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a Ankerdirect
cite Cite Docket

32 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2022-00573, No. 32 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2023)
Patent 7,825,537 B2 characteristic of said time varying electric current) responsive to the ‘feedback signal’ to achieve and maintain operation at the ‘resonant’ frequency of the coupled inductor system,” where “the ‘feedback signal’ from the sense coil constitutes ‘at least one parameter indicative of an efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit.’” Pet. 55.
As discussed above with respect to elements 1.3 and 1.4, Flowerdew teaches that “[a]pplication of a variable frequency is predicated on the basis that the high efficiency achieved by driving a resonant system is needed for effective operation.” Ex. 1007, 13:30–35 (cited by Pet. 55).
Petitioner also directs us to Flowerdew’s teaching that a “‘free running’ state, where no secondary unit 304 is present, can be detected and the power output reduced to a predetermined level or applied periodically to determine whether an item has been placed on the charging surface.” Id. at 13:18–21 (cited by Pet. 67).
Petitioner contends that “[i]t would have been obvious to modify Flowerdew in accordance with Jang’s suggestion to regulate the drive frequency based on a feedback loop that compares a measurement of the current through a primary coil to a constant reference value.” Pet. 68.
As discussed above, the Baarman Provisional Application teaches that “[u]sing feedback from the secondary, such as the sensed voltage and/or current, ... the duty cycle may be adjusted to provide additional or less power to meet the desired goal.” Ex. 1009, 16 (cited by Pet. 8).
cite Cite Document

31 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2022-00573, No. 31 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2023)
As we have stated in the petition reply, Baarman would be entitled to its priority date through the Drinkware test to establish that the provisional provides support for the claims in accordance with one.
And our expert further testified, as we say -- as we show in the bottom of slide 12, that not only would this combination optimize the power transfer as desired by both of the references, but using the magnets would have it be a user friendly method of positioning and reduce the likelihood of errors.
MR. PETRSORIC: Okay, here I think may be the disconnect, Your Honor, is the fact that with respect to claim element 1.4, they identified that the time -- the parameters obtained from current sensor 322 and the RC circuit, and that's on page 25 to 26 of the petition.
I'll note that the expert declaration is substantially similar, if not parroting what's in the petition and under the Director's precedential decision in Xerox v. Byte Mark, there's a question as to how much weight, if any, should be accorded to it.
MR. PETRSORIC: The art -- the Baarman ‘392 that the petition relies on for claims 5 and 16 is a mechanism to detect if the voltage and current at the secondary coil, which is being fed to the battery, is over an acceptable value.
cite Cite Document

13 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2022-01559, No. 13 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2023)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on September 23, 2022, in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $28,500.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
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 Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

11 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement: Termination Decision Pre DI settlement

Document IPR2022-01559, No. 11 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement - Termination Decision Pre DI settlement (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2023)
On April 5, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the above-identified proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement.
The parties also filed a copy of their settlement agreement made in connection with the termination of the instant proceeding.
Paper 9 (Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b)).
The parties further represent that “there are no collateral agreements or understandings made in connection with or in contemplation of terminating this proceeding.” Id.
Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding is granted, the Petition is dismissed, and the proceeding is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information is granted, and the settlement agreement shall be treated as business confidential information, kept separate from the file of the above-identified patent, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 16 17 18 >>