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

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 6,009,469

Docket IPR2014-01367, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 22, 2014)
Bart Gerstenblith, Kalyan Deshpande, Trenton Ward, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6009469
Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Patent Owner Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
Assignee STRAIGHT PATH COMMUNICATIONS INC.
...
cite Cite Docket

Vonage Holdings Corporation, et al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.

Docket IPR2014-01225, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 1, 2014)
Bart Gerstenblith, Kalyan Deshpande, Thomas Giannetti, Trenton Ward, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6009469
Petitioner Vonage Holdings Corporation, et al.
Patent Owner Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
Assignee STRAIGHT PATH COMMUNICATIONS INC.
...
cite Cite Docket

46 Order: Order Reconsideration of Dependent Claim 10 of the Final Decision

Document IPR2014-01367, No. 46 Order - Order Reconsideration of Dependent Claim 10 of the Final Decision (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)
After institution of inter partes review, Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and AVAYA, Inc. (“AVAYA”) filed a Petition and Motion to Join the IPR2014-01367 proceeding.
We granted this motion and joined Samsung, Cisco, and AVAYA (collectively, “Petitioner”) to this inter partes review.
We also determined that these limitations are construed to mean “is connected to the computer network at the time the query is transmitted to the server.” Id. at 12.
Accordingly, we also determine that Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS fail to disclose the limitations of claim 10 for the same reasons discussed in our Final Decision.
We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 of the ʼ469 patent is unpatentable.
cite Cite Document

45 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01367, No. 45 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

cite Cite Document

41 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-01367, No. 41 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)
JUDGE WARD: Patent Owner does set forth at page 21 of their response a proposed construction of the claim phrase "is connected to the computer network", correct?
I asked Petitioner about a specific claim limitation, this one, program code for receiving a network protocol address of the second process from the server.
But again, we are under the District Court standard right now which is you -- the claim term is supposed to get its ordinary meaning -- JUDGE DESHPANDE: But the spec also says the callee has an e-mail address.
MR. MEUNIER: Are you saying that in the specification -- I'm sorry -- JUDGE DESHPANDE: Does it contemplate, is that scenario possible that a query is going to come in for a second callee and the information returned by the connection server is not true?
JUDGE WARD: Counsel, do you agree with the Petitioner's position that no system can give you an accurate answer to the query in claim 1 every single time?
cite Cite Document

38 Notice: Order Authorization to File Additional Briefing 37 CFR 425

Document IPR2014-01367, No. 38 Notice - Order Authorization to File Additional Briefing 37 CFR 425 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2016)

cite Cite Document

33 Order: Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270

Document IPR2014-01367, No. 33 Order - Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2015)

cite Cite Document

23 Order: Decision Motion for Joinder 37 CFR 42122b

Document IPR2014-01367, No. 23 Order - Decision Motion for Joinder 37 CFR 42122b (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2015)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 12 >>