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

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

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

28 Order Other: Order Granting Patent Owners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of John Petrsoric 37 CFR sec 4210

Document IPR2022-00573, No. 28 Order Other - Order Granting Patent Owners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of John Petrsoric 37 CFR sec 4210 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2023)
Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of John Petrsoric
On June 14, 2023, Patent Owner filed a motion for admission, pro hac vice, of John Petrsoric.
The motion is supported by the declaration of John Petrsoric (Ex. 2012).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion (Paper 27) for admission pro hac vice of John Petrsoric is granted, and Mr. Petrsoric is authorized to represent Patent Owner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to represent Patent Owner as lead counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Petrsoric shall comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Petrsoric shall 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 seq.
; FURTHER ORDERED that, within one (1) business day of the date of this order, Petitioner shall file in this proceeding a power of attorney for Mr. Petrsoric in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b); and FURTHER ORDERED that, within one (1) business day of the date of this order, Petitioner shall file in this proceeding an updated mandatory notice according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)–(b), providing updated information regarding back-up counsel.
cite Cite Document

23 Order Other: Order Setting Oral Argument

Document IPR2022-00573, No. 23 Order Other - Order Setting Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2023)
Each party also shall file its demonstrative exhibits with the Board as a separate paper at least two business days prior to the hearing.
During the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.
If at any time during the hearing, counsel encounters technical or other difficulties that fundamentally undermine counsel’s ability to adequately represent its client, please let the panel know immediately, and adjustments will be made.
The Board will grant up to fifteen (15) minutes of additional argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and the PTAB’s hearing schedule.
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
cite Cite Document

18 Order on Motion: Granting Patent Owner Motion to Withdraw Counsel 37 CFR § 4210

Document IPR2022-00573, No. 18 Order on Motion - Granting Patent Owner Motion to Withdraw Counsel 37 CFR § 4210 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2023)
Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Motion requesting authorization to withdraw counsel in this proceeding.
1 Paper 16 (Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Reza Mirzaie as Back-up Counsel).
2 Prior to filing its Motion, Patent Owner filed updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 14) and an updated Power of Attorney (Paper 15) designating Brett Cooper (Reg. No. 55,085), as lead counsel, and Robert A. Auchter (Reg. No. 38,069), as back-up counsel.
1 We authorized Patent Owner to file this Motion in an e-mail dated November 23, 2022.
2 Additionally, in Patent Owner’s e-mail dated November 11, 2022, requesting authorization to file its Motion, Patent Owner stated that “[c]ounsel for Petitioner Apple (and new counsel for Scramoge) are copied on this email and do not oppose these motions to withdraw.”
cite Cite Document

12 Institution Decision Grant: Institution Decision DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 Dismissing Motion for Joinder 35 USC § 315c 37 CFR § 42122

Document IPR2022-00573, No. 12 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 Dismissing Motion for Joinder 35 USC § 315c 37 CFR §...
Petitioner additionally filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Joinder Motion” or “Joinder Mot.”) seeking to join this proceeding with Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a Ankerdirect v. Scramoge Technology Ltd., IPR2022-00499 (“the Anker IPR”), which also concerns the ’537 patent.
In exercising that discretion on behalf of the Director, the Board may consider the state of a parallel district court proceeding as a “factor that weighs in favor of denying the Petition under § 314(a).” NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs, Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential).
The remaining Fintiv factors do not sufficiently outweigh our consideration of the proximity of the court’s expected trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision to lead us to exercise discretion to deny institution.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “automatically adjusting at least one characteristic of said time varying electric current responsive to said parameter to maximize an efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit.” Ex. 1001, 10:11–14.
Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that its proposed combination of Flowerdew and Jang teaches the recited switch element of claim 12.
cite Cite Document

13 Order Other: Order SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2022-00573, No. 13 Order Other - Order SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2022)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>