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

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.

Docket IPR2022-01559, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 23, 2022)
Jameson Lee, Kristina Kalan, Michelle Wormmeester, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7825537
Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd.
Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Google LLC v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.

Docket IPR2022-00683, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 8, 2022)
Brian McNamara, Jameson Lee, Karl Easthom, Kristina Kalan, Michelle Wormmeester, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7825537
Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd.
Petitioner Google LLC
Petitioner Samsung Electronics
...
cite Cite Docket

Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a Ankerdirect v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.

Docket IPR2022-00499, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 1, 2022)
Brian McNamara, Jameson Lee, Karl Easthom, Kristina Kalan, Michelle Wormmeester, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7825537
Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd.
Petitioner Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a Ankerdirect
cite Cite Docket

13 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2022-01559, No. 13 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2023)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on September 23, 2022, in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $28,500.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

11 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement: Termination Decision Pre DI settlement

Document IPR2022-01559, No. 11 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement - Termination Decision Pre DI settlement (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2023)
On April 5, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the above-identified proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement.
The parties also filed a copy of their settlement agreement made in connection with the termination of the instant proceeding.
Paper 9 (Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b)).
The parties further represent that “there are no collateral agreements or understandings made in connection with or in contemplation of terminating this proceeding.” Id.
Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding is granted, the Petition is dismissed, and the proceeding is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information is granted, and the settlement agreement shall be treated as business confidential information, kept separate from the file of the above-identified patent, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
cite Cite Document

7 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice Notice filing date accorded

Document IPR2022-01559, No. 7 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice Notice filing date accorded (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2022)
For more information, please consult the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.
The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause.
Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual property field, offer alternative dispute resolution services.
If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, Case IPR2022-01559 Patent No. 7,825,537 mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.
cite Cite Document

15 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2022-00683, No. 15 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2022)
GOOGLE LLC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
Patent 7,825,537 Mailed: November 8, 2022
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on March 8, 2022, in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $22,500.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

13 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement: Termination Decision DECISION Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial 37 CFR § 4274

Document IPR2022-00683, No. 13 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement - Termination Decision DECISION Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial 37 CFR § 4274 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2022)
On September 1, 2022, with the Board’s authorization, Google LLC (“Petitioner”) and Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) (collectively, “the parties”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate (“Joint Motion”) in each of the above-identified proceedings due to settlement of the parties’ disputes.
The parties also filed, in each of the above-identified proceedings, a Joint Request to Keep Separate that requests the Board to treat the Settlement Agreement as business confidential information and to keep it separate from the publicly available files in the above-identified proceedings.
In the Joint Motion, the parties represent that they have reached an agreement to seek termination of the above-identified inter partes review proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
In view of the early stage of the above-identified proceedings, and the settlement between the parties, we determine that good cause exists to dismiss the petitions and terminate the above-identified proceedings with respect to the parties.
We determine that good cause exists to treat the Settlement Agreement between the parties as business confidential information and to keep it separate from the files of the patent in the above-identified proceedings pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 13 14 >>