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

Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC

Docket IPR2020-01190, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 22, 2020)
John Hudalla, Juliet Mitchell Dirba, Sheila McShane, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8542113
Patent Owner LBT IP I LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

44 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 44 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)
Whenthe strength of the device’s GPS signal is below a predetermined threshold value—for example, when the de- vice’s access to GPSsatellites is partially or fully blocked— portions of the location tracking circuitry may be deac- tivated to conserve battery power.
In his deposition, for example, Mr. Andrews repeatedly used qualifying language such as “presumably,” “maybe,” and “might” when he explained that although the GPSre- ceiver is deactivated when in the stop-position mode, a skilled artisan would understand Sakamoto turns on com- ponents of the GPSreceiverto cyclically measure the signal level.
The fact that Document: 39 Page:9 Filed: 06/09/2023 LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC. the GPS receiver cannot automatically transition out of stop-position mode in the cycle set in advance embodiment does not render Sakamoto’s device useless becausethe re- ceiver can be turned on manually.
In concluding otherwise, the Board relied on the following passage: “Advantageously as com- pared to conventional tracking devices, user input request 430 adjusts value 419 to select an appropriate update set Document: 39 Page:12 Filed: 06/09/2023 LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC. of network communication signaling protocols to achieve a desired user defined battery operating environment, e.g., obtain optimal battery life, obtain optimal update rate, tradeoffs between them.” Id. at 11:58—67 (emphasis added).
As relevant on appeal, the Board found Apple’s pro- posed combination of Miranda-Knapp and Miller discloses the claim limitation reciting “a battery power monitor con- figured to activate and deactivate at least one portion of signaling circuitry in response to the accelerometer cir- cuitry detecting a substantially stationary position of the electronic tracking device.” ‘619 Decision, at *8—-12.
cite Cite Document

45 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 45 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)
Document:41 Page:1_ Filed: 07/17/2023 GAnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appellee 2022-1613, 2022-1614, 2022-1615, 2022-1616, 2022-1617 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
In accordance with the judgmentof this Court, entered June 9, 2028, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
July 17, 2023 Date
cite Cite Document

42 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Dec...

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 42 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

cite Cite Document

41 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 41 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2022)
I'm wondering if maybe that is the -- the part of Patent Owner's argument that's coming to the fore here, which is you have this mapping where you talk about these Sakamoto GPS components as being the primary location tracking circuitry.
MR. SEAL: So our argument is that the claims require that any reduction in power to the primary location tracking circuitry has to preserve the ability to reactivate in response to a signal.
I'll be interested in your surrebuttal time to hear your answer to Judge Dirba's question about where the -- where you've really explored this consumed versus applied issue, because I'm not remembering seeing that in your papers.
JUDGE DIRBA: I have an additional question for you, circling back to the applied versus consumed power discussion that we were having earlier, to try to make sure that I understand your position on that.
So I would -- the answer that I have at this point, Your Honor, is that it is perhaps not as explicit or is easily identified in our Revised Motion to Amend, but the argument is there that the references to Sakamoto, Alberth, and Gronemeyer do not disclose reducing applied power.
cite Cite Document

38 Order Other: Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270a

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 38 Order Other - Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270a (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2021)

cite Cite Document

32 Order Other: Order Revised Scheduling Order

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 32 Order Other - Order Revised Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2021)

cite Cite Document

28 Notice Other: Notice Other

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 28 Notice Other - Notice Other (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2021)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 >>