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

Amazon.com, Inc. v. CustomPlay, LLC

Docket IPR2018-01497, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 1, 2018)
J. John Lee, Jessica Kaiser, John Kenny, Kristi Sawert, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9124950
Patent Owner CustomPlay, LLC
Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

47 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit Judgment and mandate

Document IPR2018-01497, No. 47 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit Judgment and mandate (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2022)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
MATTHAEI, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for appellee.
MCKAYE LEA NEUMEISTER, Appellate Staff, Civil Divi- sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor.
ROBERT J. MCMANUS, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Of- fice, Alexandria, VA.
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges).
cite Cite Document

48 Other other court decision: Cert Denied

Document IPR2018-01497, No. 48 Other other court decision - Cert Denied (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2022)
No. 21-1527 Title: Docketed: Lower Ct: Search documents in this case: Search CustomPlay, LLC, Petitioner
Amazon.com, Inc., et al. June 6, 2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case Numbers: (2020-2207) Decision Date: February 15, 2022
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed.
(Response due July 6, 2022) Petition Count Appendix Proof of Service Certificate of Word Proof of Service Jun 24 2022 Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondents to respond filed.
Main Document Jul 13 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
cite Cite Document

45 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Patent Owner: Denying Patent Owners Request for Rehearing 37 CFR Section 4271

Document IPR2018-01497, No. 45 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Patent Owner - Denying Patent Owners Request for Rehearing 37 CFR Section 4271 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2020)
Patent 9,124,950 B2 On March 5, 2020, we entered a Final Written Decision (Paper 40) in this proceeding.
Patent Owner timely filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 43) (“Rehearing Request”) which contends that we overlooked or misapprehended (i) that the makeup of the Board violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and (ii) that the Board’s Final Written Decision violates the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by not according the judicial presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
Patent Owner, however, does not identify where it raised either constitutional challenge in any prior submission.
Huawei Device Co. Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19, 9–10 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential).
Thus, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), a request for rehearing “must identify specifically all matters [the party believes the Board] misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. (emphasis added).
cite Cite Document

44 Order: PANEL CHANGE ORDERConduct of the Proceedings37 CFR ¿¿ 425

Document IPR2018-01497, No. 44 Order - PANEL CHANGE ORDERConduct of the Proceedings37 CFR ¿¿ 425 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2020)
Conduct of the Proceedings
The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceeding.
Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Kristi L. R. Sawert replaces Administrative Patent Judge John J. Lee Thus, Administrative Patent Judges Jessica C. Kaiser, John R. Kenny, and Kristi L. R. Sawert now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in this proceeding.
All prior decisions and orders remain in effect.
It is
cite Cite Document

42 Order: ORDERConduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2018-01497, No. 42 Order - ORDERConduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020)
On April 3, 2020, we extended the deadline for filing a request for rehearing of our Final Written Decision in each of the above-captioned cases by 30 days.
Patent Owner contacted the Board via email to request a further extension of the deadline to June 1, 2020, in each case.
Pursuant to that authority, on March 31, 2020, the Office issued the Notice of Waiver of Patent-Related Timing Deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
As noted above, we previously granted a 30-day extension for filing requests for rehearing with respect to those Decisions.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the deadline for filing requests for rehearing of the Final Written Decision in each of the above-captioned cases is extended to June 1, 2020.
cite Cite Document

41 Order: Conduct of the Proceeding37 CFR sec 425

Document IPR2018-01497, No. 41 Order - Conduct of the Proceeding37 CFR sec 425 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2020)
On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, ___ Stat. ___ (2020) (“CARES Act”) was enacted.
Pursuant to that authority, on March 31, 2020, the Office issued the Notice of Waiver of Patent-Related Timing Deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act* (“CARES Act Notice”).
According to the CARES Act Notice, the Board “shall provide a 30- day extension of time” for a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) upon a request “affirming that a filing due between, and inclusive of both, March 27, 2020 and April 30, 2020 was or may be delayed due to the COVID-19 outbreak.” CARES Act Notice 3.
A delay “due to the COVID- 19 outbreak” is defined as occurring “if a ... patent owner ... was personally affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, including, without limitation, through office closures, cash flow interruptions, inaccessibility of files or other materials, travel delays, personal or family illness, or similar circumstances, such that the outbreak materially interfered with timely filing.” Id. at 2.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the deadline for filing requests for rehearing of the Final Written Decision in each of the above-captioned cases is extended by 30 days.
cite Cite Document

40 Final Decision: JUDGMENTFinal Written DecisionDetermining All Challenged Claims UnpatentableDenying Patent Owner’s Motion to Excludet

Document IPR2018-01497, No. 40 Final Decision - JUDGMENTFinal Written DecisionDetermining All Challenged Claims UnpatentableDenying Patent Owner’s Motion to Excludet (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2020)
Further, Dr. Bovik sets forth the analysis and evidence that underlies his opinion that the combination would require no change to Armstrong’s basic functioning (Ex. 1002 ¶ 135; Ex. 1102 ¶ 70), whereas Dr. Reader’s contrary testimony is conclusory (Ex. 2021 ¶ 116), and thus of little weight.
We credit Dr. Bovik’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that with that overlay (particularly, with its illustrated position and size), the primary video need not be paused while a user views the overlaid menu.
Petitioner argues that Abecassis’s disclosure of identifying the beginning of a segment in which a pause occurred and resuming the video at that location suggests this limitation, and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined this teaching from Abecassis with Armstrong.
Considering both parties’ arguments and the complete record after trial, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not proven the playing of the catch-up clip at higher speeds constitutes the recited resuming.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’950 Patent are unpatentable, as summarized in the following table: probative value is substantially outweighed ... .”).
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 >>