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

EMC Corporation v. Clouding Corp.

Docket IPR2014-01309, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 16, 2014)
Jameson Lee, Miriam Quinn, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Petitioner EMC Corporation
Patent Owner Clouding Corp.
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
...
cite Cite Docket

36 Final Decision: Final Written Decision on Remand

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 36 Final Decision - Final Written Decision on Remand (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)
Of relevance to this decision, the Federal Circuit determined that Patent Owner’s only argument to the Board in support of nonobviousness was that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 would not yield a solution that involves “saving a state of a computer system,” as the second half of claim 6, step 5 requires.
In addition, as Petitioner argues, “Barnett explicitly contemplates an embodiment in which the diagnostic system would initially fail to determine a likely solution to a fault, but in which its configuration manager nonetheless remains capable of introducing ‘new component types, which require new models and meta-models.’” Pet.
Dr. Sacerdoti, Petitioner’s expert, states that a skilled artisan “would understand this citation to mean that, absent the encoding of models and meta-models describing the new component types, the diagnostic system would be unable to derive a precise diagnosis.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 18.
Patent Owner concludes that “any combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 would, at best, save case criteria and user-supplied information as a new case and would not save computer state, as required by claim 6.” Id. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s argument and evidence and determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Allen ’664 teaches and Barnett teaches the limitation at issue.
Petitioner’s argument is supported by Dr. Sacerdoti’s testimony, which was formed from his “own extensive experience in managing and teaching the development of rule-based expert systems, and from what [he was] aware was the state of the art at the time of the invention of the ’839 patent.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 32.
cite Cite Document

34 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 34 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)
Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 teaches or suggests the condition “when a likely solution [to a problem in the computer system] cannot be determined,” as recited in claim 6.
Patent 5,944,839 A fault” and that this is “a situation that is not truly contemplated by Barnett” (PO Resp. 6–7), Petitioner does not contend that it instead relies on Allen ’664 as teaching or suggesting the condition “when a likely solution to a problem [in the computer system] cannot be determined.” See Pet.
Based on this disclosure, Petitioner asserts that “Barnett explicitly contemplates an embodiment in which the diagnostic system would initially fail to determine a likely solution to a fault, but in which its configuration manager nonetheless remains capable of introducing ‘new component types, which require new models and meta-models.’” Pet.
In particular, Dr. Sacerdoti does not provide sufficient factual basis in support of his opinion that Barnett contemplates the situation in which there is an absence of models and meta-models describing the new component types.
Patent 5,944,839 A Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Allen ’664 and Barnett teaches or suggests “when a likely solution cannot be determined,” as recited in claim 6.
cite Cite Document

33 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 33 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015)
There's no countervailing declaration or other testimony from a different expert about what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have gathered from these references and therefore no reason for the Board to alter its preliminary conclusion that Claims 6, 8, and 14 are obvious is light of Barnett and Allen.
And I should have added there's also, of course, citations of the supporting declaration 45689 Dr. Sacerdoti which is Exhibit 1,007 where he reviews each portion of the references that I just mentioned and provides his own opinion on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that and how the combination would have -- would have satisfied the claim limitations.
So the position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at the combination of Barnett and Allen would understand that if you cannot identify the likely solution to the problem based on the information you're able to gain through the sensors, the software agents described in Barnett and Allen, that it would be obvious to save the Case IPR2014-01309 Patent: 5,944,839 state of the computer system in order to have a human expert spend time or the computer system itself spend more time to identify a likely solution and prove -- JUDGE QUINN: But that's not -- that's not because either reference teaches it.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the citation to mean that ops and then coding of models and metamodels describing a new component time, but the Case IPR2014-01309 Patent: 5,944,839 diagnostic system would be unable to derive a precise diagnosis [sic].
The -- the Allen reference teaches us that these fault management systems operate in a different way, and constructing the rule base is sometimes counterintuitive and may be beyond the ability of many application programmers.
cite Cite Document

30 Order: Order Trial Hearing

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 30 Order - Order Trial Hearing (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2015)
Patent 5,944,839 Pursuant to our prior orders, oral argument is scheduled to be held in this proceeding on October 20, 2015, if requested by the parties.
The oral argument will commence at 10:00 AM Eastern Time, on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
Therefore, at oral argument, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with respect to the challenged patent claims and grounds on which the Board instituted trial.
Patent 5,944,839 The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript and the ability of the judge participating remotely to follow the presenter’s arguments.
cite Cite Document

27 Notice: Revised Scheduling Order

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 27 Notice - Revised Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2015)
Patent 5,944,839 It is: ORDERED that the oral hearing in this case, currently scheduled for Tuesday, October 27, is re-scheduled to Tuesday, October 20, 2015.
cite Cite Document

20 Notice: Order 37 CFR 4210

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 20 Notice - Order 37 CFR 4210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2015)
Petitioner’s Motions for Admissions Pro Hac Vice of Jason Yu, Bas De Blank, and Monte M. F. Cooper
Patent 5,944,839 It is ORDERED that Petitioner’s unopposed motions for pro hac vice admissions of Mssrs.
Yu, De Blank, and Cooper are authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in the instant proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Mssrs.
Yu, De Blank, and Cooper are to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and FURTHER ORDERED that Mssrs.
Yu, De Blank, and Cooper are to be subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et.
cite Cite Document

15 Notice: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 15 Notice - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)
This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution of the proceeding.
A notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly filed.
The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R § 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by
Each party must file any reply to a petitioner observation on cross-examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 >>