• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
79 results

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Altria Client Services LLC

Docket IPR2021-00745, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 31, 2021)
Elizabeth Roesel, Grace Karaffa Obermann, James Mayberry, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
10485269
Patent Owner Altria Client Services LLC
Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

10 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2021-00745, No. 10 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2021)
Patent 10,485,269 Mailed: November 23, 2021
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on March 31, 2021, in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $22,500.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
7 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
Analyze

8 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2021-00745, No. 8 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2021)
In particular, the District Court found, “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms ‘front face’ and ‘rear face’ to mean: front/rear surface bounded by one or more edges.” Id. at 26 (emphasis omitted).
The view provided in Juul 1 (on the left in the above image) reflects, within the transparent lower portion, three circular or spherical elements, which appear to be air bubbles floating within a liquid.
For reasons that follow, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Verleur would have suggested a vapor precursor compartment having front and rear faces as specified in claim 19.
Even if Petitioner had made such a comparison, however, the Petition is deficient for failure to explain why the Board should view Patent Owner’s District Court infringement contentions as sufficient to show that the claim limitation reads on the prior art.
Patent Owner disagrees, arguing, “Even if the vaporizer has external ‘sides,’ that does not necessarily mean that the internal surfaces that mate with the cartomizer must share those sides.” Prelim. Resp. 38 n.8 (emphasis in original).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

5 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Accord Filing Date

Document IPR2021-00745, No. 5 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

2 Petition: Petition

Document IPR2021-00745, No. 2 Petition - Petition (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

9 Refund Request: Petitioners Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees

Document IPR2021-00745, No. 9 Refund Request - Petitioners Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

POD ASSEMBLY, DISPENSING BODY, AND E-VAPOR APPARATUS INCLUDING ...

Docket 16/111,468, U.S. Patent Application (Aug. 24, 2018)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

7 Notice: Petitioners Notice of Sotera Stipulation

Document IPR2021-00745, No. 7 Notice - Petitioners Notice of Sotera Stipulation (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 6 >>