• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 9-23 of 153 results

PORTION CAPSULE HAVING AN IDENTIFIER

Docket 17/385,109, U.S. Patent Application (July 26, 2021)
Art Group3761
Case TypeUtility - 099/295000
Class099
Patent
11230430
Marc KRÜGER
Applicant K-FEE SYSTEM GMBH
Assignee K-FEE SYSTEM GMBH
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

24 Notice Exhibit list: Petitioners Updated Exhibit List

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 24 Notice Exhibit list - Petitioners Updated Exhibit List (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2024)
Nespresso Vertuo System Claim Construction Order ’818 Appl.
Summary Judgment Order Patent No. 11,230,430 Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List 1055 Food Packaging and Shelf Life: A Practical Guide (2009), Chapter 11 – “Packaging and the Shelf Life of Coffee” Illy, Andrea, and Rinantonio Viani, eds.
No. 16/538,752: Nov. 8, 2019 Office Action Rejection 1056 1057 Food Packaging Espresso Coffee 752 Appl.
Notice of Allowance 1065 Email authorizing reply and sur-reply 2023-07-10 Trials Email Patent No. 11,230,430 Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List 1066 Transcript of deposition of Laurens Howle taken September 13, 2023 (Corrected EX1058 from IPR2022-01574) Howle Depo.
Tr. II Transcript of Trial Testimony of Laurens Howle taken June 6-7, 2018, Case No. 2:15-cv-00522 (W.D.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

23 Notice Exhibit list: Patent Owner Updated Exhibit List

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 23 Notice Exhibit list - Patent Owner Updated Exhibit List (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2024)
Exhibit Description Ex. 2001 Declaration of Laurens “Lars” Howle (“Howle Decl.”) Ex. 2002 Ex. 2003 Ex. 2004 Ex. 2005 Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary for Appl.
No. 17/108,175 K-fee System GmbH v. Nespresso USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21- cv-3402 GW(AGRx), Dkt. No. 126-1 (Apr. 1, 2022) K-fee System GmbH v. Nespresso USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21- cv-3402 GW(AGRx), Dkt. No. 211 (June 17, 2022) Ex. 2006 U.S. Patent No. 11,254,491 Ex. 2007 U.S. Patent No. 10,858,177 Ex. 2008 Excerpts of file history for U.S. Patent No. 10,858,176 Ex. 2009 Excerpts of file history for U.S. Patent No. 10,870,531 Ex. 2010 Excerpts of file history for Appl.
No. 17/963,392 Ex. 2012 File history for U.S. Patent 11,254,491 Ex. 2013 Notice of Allowance for Appl.
No. 17/670,765 Exhibit Ex. 2016 Ex. 2017 Ex. 2018 Ex. 2019 Ex. 2020 Ex. 2021 Ex. 2022 Ex. 2023 Ex. 2024 Ex. 2025 Ex. 2026 Ex. 2027 Description Suggestion for Declaration of Interference, Appl.
No. 13/697,297 Declaration of Laurens “Lars” Howle in Support of Patent Owner’s Response (“Howle Decl.”) Transcript of deposition of Michael Jobin taken June 22, 2023 Transcript of deposition of Michael Jobin taken November 28, 2023
cite Cite Document
Analyze

20 Other other: Patent Owners Request for Oral Hearing

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 20 Other other - Patent Owners Request for Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2024)
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), requiring a separate paper requesting oral hearing and specifying issues to be argued, Patent Owner K-fee System GmbH submits this Request for Oral Hearing on the instituted grounds for claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,230,430 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and associated matters.
Furthermore, Patent Owner requests that the hearing be held in person at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria (as set forth in the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 10 at 6)), and be held in the morning Eastern Time to accommodate arguing counsel’s travel schedule.
Patent Owner anticipates that more than five (5) individuals will attend the argument on its behalf.
Patent Owner further requests the ability to use audio/visual equipment, including an Elmo, laptop, projector, and screen, to display demonstratives and exhibits at the Oral Hearing.
Respectfully submitted, /Michael P. Chu/ Michael P. Chu, Lead Counsel Registration No. 37,112 Attorneys/Agents for Patent Owner
cite Cite Document
Analyze

21 Other other: Petitioners Request for Oral Argument

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 21 Other other - Petitioners Request for Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2024)
Petitioner also respectfully requests that the oral argument be held in person at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria.
Petitioner submits that seventy-five (75) minutes per side is sufficient to present the parties’ arguments pertaining to both IPR proceedings to the Board.
Petitioner further requests the use of audio-visual equipment to assist its arguments and to display is demonstrative exhibits, including a computer- connectable projector, an ELMO, and a screen.
Petitioner requests the services of a court reporter to transcribe the proceeding.
Petitioner respectfully requests space to accommodate additional individuals to attend on its behalf.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

19 Other other: Patent Owners Sur Reply

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 19 Other other - Patent Owners Sur Reply (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2024)
Pet., 47 (“Jarisch also discloses motivations for a POSITA to combine the brewing and barcode identification system of Yoakim with the code location of Jarisch on the bottom flange of the capsule.”); Ex.1003, ¶182 (“A person of ordinary skill in the
As such, a POSITA would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in moving the sensor to the bottom of Yoakim’s brewing device and the combination of Jarisch and Yoakim would have required a significant redesign of the elements.
Petitioner’s reasoning for why the second German application does not disclose a bowed cover highlights its plainly contradictory readings of similar disclosures to suit its own purposes.
Petitioner has failed to establish how this is the same as supplying water only upon a determination that the read barcode agrees with a stored reference or that the single-serve capsule is operable for use with the beverage machine.
Petitioner attempts to overcome these shortcomings by arguing against “bodily incorporation,” but that does not give license to ignore demonstrating a motivation to combine the teachings to arrive at Patent Owner’s claims.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

18 Pet Reply to PO Resp: Petitioners Reply to Patent Owners Response

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 18 Pet Reply to PO Resp - Petitioners Reply to Patent Owners Response (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2024)
K-fee Failed to Meet its Priority Burden The Board determined that K-fee did not show written description support for the challenged claims in the Second German Application (EX1047).
8 K-fee’s deposition quote simply notes that the wall is referred to using different language than the outer surface or engaging structure, not that the teeth are located elsewhere on the capsule.
Howle also focuses on a “bend” shown in Yoakim’s capsule holder and offers the conclusory argument (without any citation to evidence) that attempting to send light through such a bend would require “extensive modifications” and would lead to “undesired refraction ... Fresnel effects, internal reflection, transmission loss .
If Howle was correct, the ’430 Patent would contain a robust disclosure teaching how to configure a barcode reader to read through the chamber holding the capsule below the flange.
Moreover, his inability to answer basic questions on K-fee’s patents,11 his failure to support his “optical” opinions with evidence, and his inconsistent positions on obviousness and priority, further demonstrate he is not POSITA.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

17 Notice Notice of deposition: Notice of Deposition of Laurens Howle

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 17 Notice Notice of deposition - Notice of Deposition of Laurens Howle (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2024)
Patent No. 11,230,430 Notice of Deposition of Laurens Howle
Please take notice that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.53, Petitioner Nespresso USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”), by and through its undersigned counsel, intends to take the oral deposition of Dr. Laurens Howle commencing February 22, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of Alston & Bird, 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC, 27601.
The deposition will be conducted before an officer authorized to administer oaths and will be recorded stenographically.
Dated: February 5, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
Patent No. 11,230,430 Notice of Deposition of Laurens Howle
cite Cite Document
Analyze

16 Other other: Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Under 37 CFR § 4264B1

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 16 Other other - Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Under 37 CFR § 4264B1 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2023)
Patent No. 11,230,430 Objections to Evidence proceeding was instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Moreover, the witness is not qualified as an expert on the subject matter at issue by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
Patent No. 11,230,430 Objections to Evidence or for other reasons): These exhibits include information whose probative value to any ground upon which this proceeding was instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
This exhibit consists of a description and instructions on how to use an unrelated product—the Bialetti Moka Express.
403 (Excluding evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or for other reasons): This exhibit includes information whose probative value to any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

15 PO Response to Pet: Patent Owner Response

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 15 PO Response to Pet - Patent Owner Response (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2023)
Petitioner Has Not Shown By A Preponderance of the Evidence The ’430 Patent Is Unpatentable On the incomplete record, the Board determined Petitioner’s assertions regarding Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani (Ground 1) were sufficient at the institution stage of the proceeding.
Petitioner then concedes Yoakim falls short, arguing (again, without supporting evidence) Rossi discloses the complete limitation – controlling a pump to supply water upon both detection of the identifier and a determination by the machine that the barcode agrees with a stored reference.
And he still fails to account for the added complexity that would be required of the capsule holders of Yoakim and Jarisch in order to address the optical aberrations that would inevitably result due to such factors as birefringence, internal reflection, Fresnel effects, etc. See In re Schweickert, 676 Fed. App’x 988, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example, Mr. Jobin testified in his experience with consulting on the design of identification means for a home beer- dispenser system, he evaluated several ways of identifying and verifying the correct beer cartridge was being used, including through the use of barcodes and the shape of the capsule or its “ribs or features” would result in “physical exclusion related to deactivation of the valve to prevent dispensing.” Ex. 2018 at 63:11-64:10; 64:11-16; 64:18-65:6, 67:16-68:4; Ex. 2017, ¶101.
Because the patentee provided no evidence it tested and actually possessed the claimed invention, nor any “‘blaze marks’ that would lead an ordinarily skilled investigator toward such a species among a slew of competing possibilities,” the Court affirmed the finding of lack of written description.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Notice Notice of deposition: Patent Owners Amended Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 14 Notice Notice of deposition - Patent Owners Amended Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2023)
Amended Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.53, please take notice that Patent Owner K-fee System GmbH, by and through its counsel, will take the deposition of Michael Jobin commencing November 28, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of Mayer Brown LLP, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020-1001.
The deposition will be conducted before an officer authorized to administer oaths.
Date: November 3, 2023 Respectfully submitted, /Michael P. Chu/ By: Michael P. Chu, Lead Counsel Reg. No. 37,112 Attorneys/Agents for Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 11,230,430
Amended Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin
cite Cite Document
Analyze

13 Notice Notice of deposition: Patent Owners Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 13 Notice Notice of deposition - Patent Owners Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2023)
Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.53, please take notice that Patent Owner K-fee System GmbH, by and through its counsel, will take the deposition of Michael Jobin commencing November 28, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, 200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58, Boston, MA 02116.
The deposition will be conducted before an officer authorized to administer oaths.
Respectfully submitted, /Michael P. Chu/ By: Michael P. Chu, Lead Counsel Reg. No. 37,112 Attorneys/Agents for Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 11,230,430
Notice of Deposition of Michael Jobin
cite Cite Document
Analyze

12 Other other: Patent Owners Objections to Evidence Submitted with Petitioners Petition for Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 12 Other other - Patent Owners Objections to Evidence Submitted with Petitioners Petition for Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2023)
Patent Owner objects to this exhibit under FRE 702 because the witness is not qualified as an expert on the subject matter at issue by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
Evidence Ex. 1022 Ex. 1023 Ex. 1024 Ex. 1025 Ex. 1026 Ex. 1027 Description Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste of time under
Evidence Ex. 1033 Ex. 1034 Ex. 1035 Ex. 1036 Ex. 1037 Ex. 1038 Ex. 1039 Description Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste of time under
Evidence Ex. 1040 Ex. 1042 Ex. 1043 Ex. 1044 Ex. 1048 Ex. 1049 Description Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste of time under
Exhibit 1049 is K-Fee System GmbH v. Nespresso USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00525 – Supplemental Disclosure of Infringement Contentions (July 11, 2022).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

11 Other other: Petitioners Objections to Evidence Under 37 CFR § 4264B1

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 11 Other other - Petitioners Objections to Evidence Under 37 CFR § 4264B1 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2023)
403 (Excluding evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or for other reasons): These exhibits include information whose probative value to any ground upon which this trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
403 (Excluding evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or for other reasons): These exhibits include information whose probative value to any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
403 (Excluding evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or for other reasons): This exhibit includes information whose probative value to any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
This exhibit concerns a pre-AIA suggestion for declaration of interference, which was not brought by the Petitioner, was never adjudicated by the Patent Office, and which involved claims of differing scope than those challenged in the present trial.
403 (Excluding evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or for other reasons): This exhibit includes information whose probative value to any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Other other: Patent Owners Sur reply

Document IPR2023-00485, No. 8 Other other - Patent Owners Sur reply (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2023)
Now Petitioner accepts a broader plain and ordinary meaning that it fought against in the District Court to cover an identical disclosure found in the Yoakim reference.
Instead, in the District Court Petitioner advocated for a narrow scope of the term in order to avoid reading on an explicit disclosure of “barcode.” In contrast here, Petitioner seeks the plain and ordinary meaning of the term to cover a purported disclosure of “barcode” in the prior art.
The Patent Owner in Chanel also failed to identify how the Petitioner’s differing claim construction would impact the present issues before the Board.
Further, Petitioner’s argument that the element 2.4.2 must be on the outer circumference of a flange rather than on its bottom is unsupportable in light of Patent Owner’s identification of Figures 16, 17, and 18 as supporting the ’430 Patent’s claims— Figure 17a irrefutably depicts a view of the repeated toothed ring identifier on the bottom side of the flange, held in place by the retaining arms, and Petitioner’s expert agreed.
As explained in the Preliminary Response, a POSITA would recognize that Figure 16 depicts a convex or outwardly-bowed cover, which can result from the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the capsule.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11 >>