Search court records on patent:(6910069) - not party Cristina Martinez, page 4

8 Other Not for motions: Patent Owners Preliminary Response Redacted

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 8 Other Not for motions - Patent Owners Preliminary Response Redacted (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017)

Accordingly, while Patent Owner reserves its right to advance additional arguments in the event that trial is instituted on any ground, the deficiencies of the Petition noted herein are more than sufficient for the Board to find that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.

Accordingly, Virgil Bourassa and Fred Holt— employees working in the Mathematics & Engineering Analysis Department at Boeing and eventual co-inventors of the SWAN Patents—were asked to create a system that would allow peer-to-peer communications for at least three participants across the country.

Throughout those three years, the inventors had nearly thirty different epiphanies that led to the creation of a successful system that was able to provide peer-to-peer communications among computer processes across the world, all while maintaining high reliability and low latency.

The SWAN project initially began in November of 1996 when Robert Abarbanel, Virgil Bourassa’s supervisor in the Computer Science Group, asked Mr. Bourassa to create a peer-to-peer communication platform that would support more than two users.

However, when “a patent owner provides sufficient rebuttal evidence that reasonably brings into question the accuracy of the petitioner’s identification of real parties-in-interest, the burden remains with the petitioner to establish that it has complied with the statutory requirement.” Id.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Bungie
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

7 Motion: Patent Owners Motion for Entry of Proposed Protective Order and to Seal Certain Exhibits

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 7 Motion - Patent Owners Motion for Entry of Proposed Protective Order and to Seal Certain Exhibits (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017)

The Board’s standards for granting motions to seal are discussed in Garmin International v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, IPR2012-00001 (Paper 34 at 4- 5, Mar. 14, 2013).

Motion for Entry of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order IPR2017-01600 (U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069) The sealing of the foregoing is of particular importance because the public disclosure of such “truly sensitive information” would impact Boeing’s competitive position in the market.

The public’s interest in accessing the information requiring that the limited identified portions of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and Subject Exhibits be sealed for the purposes of the patentability of the challenged claims is unquestionably outweighed by the prejudicial effect and competitive harm of disclosing the above described confidential business information of third party, Boeing.

To the best of Acceleration Bay’s knowledge, the confidential information contained in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and the Subject Exhibits has not been made publically available.

Accordingly, good cause exists to warrant entry of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order and to seal Acceleration Bay’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response and the Subject Exhibits from public disclosure.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Bungie
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

No. 167 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Motion for Attorney's Fees - filed by Acceleration Bay ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 167 (D.Del. Aug. 23, 2016)

Motion to File

Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC respectfully moves the Court for an Order granting leave to file the attached, two-page sur-reply (Ex. 1 hereto), in response to Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion For Attorneys’ Fees (“Reply Brief,” C.A.

The requested relief is sought in order to address TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond, 12-cv-3529-AJN, 2016 WL 3866578 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2016), which issued after Defendants filed the instant motion and was raised by Defendants for the first time in their Reply Brief.

While, as discussed more fully in Acceleration Bay’s attached sur-reply brief, TufAmerica is inapposite to Defendants’ motion, a response is still required to address Defendants’ mischaracterization of that decision.

On August 17, 2016, Delaware counsel for Acceleration Bay contacted Defendants’ Delaware counsel by telephone to discuss this motion.

In a subsequent response, Defendants conditioned their consent to Acceleration Bay’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply on Acceleration Bay’s agreement that Defendants could file a sur-sur-reply, which Acceleration Bay believes is neither appropriate nor necessary.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Allen M. -SM- Terrell, JR.
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

6 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Filing Date Accorded

Document IPR2016-00726, No. 6 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Filing Date Accorded (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

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.

Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under “Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” 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 Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.

If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, Case IPR2016-00726 Patent 6,910,069 mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.

Cite Document

Analyze

13 Notice: Petitioner Bungies Mandatory Change of Information Notices

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 13 Notice - Petitioner Bungies Mandatory Change of Information Notices (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2018)

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), the undersigned on behalf of and acting in a representative capacity for Petitioner Bungie, Inc., hereby submits the following mandatory change-of-information notices in connection with the petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069, Case IPR2017-01600.

Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) – Unchanged C. Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) –Revised Petitioner Bungie, Inc. provides the following updated designation of counsel: Lead Counsel Michael T. Rosato USPTO Reg. No. 52,182

Back-Up Counsel Andrew S. Brown USPTO Reg. No. 74,177

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Bungie
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

2 Petition: Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No 6910069

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 2 Petition - Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No 6910069 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2017)

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

12 Rehearing Request in re Petition Institution Decision Denied: Petitioners Reques...

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 12 Rehearing Request in re Petition Institution Decision Denied - Petitioners Request for Rehearing (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2018)