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

American Megatrends, Inc. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.

Docket IPR2015-01140, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 6, 2015)
Barbara Parvis, Brian McNamara, Glenn Perry, J. John Lee, Phillip Kauffman, Trevor Jefferson, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6519659
Petitioner American Megatrends, Inc.
Patent Owner Kinglite Holdings Inc.
Assignee AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC.
...
cite Cite Docket

34 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 34 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016)
Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Nazarian, relies on the initial loading of the operating system and placement of the bootstrap loader on a storage device to support the conclusion that Madden discloses no actions that occur prior to the booting of the OS.
Based on the complete record, Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence and argument that Christeson includes a storage element containing a copy of the CMOS data.
Petitioner provides argument, claim charts, and citations to the Righi Declaration in support of its contentions that Madden and Bizzarri teach the limitations regarding the application program and
Petitioner provides adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning for the combination of the method disclosed in Noll for the recovery of damaged BIOS with the storage element in Moran, namely to improve the reliability of the system.
Based on the full record, we find that Petitioner has provided convincing evidence and analysis that the combination of Noll and Moran teach the limitations of dependent claims 6 and 13.
cite Cite Document

33 Hearing Transcript: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 33 Hearing Transcript - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)
And that's really the essence of the claim is this notion of writing contents from memory to a storage device before an operating system is active, because in that case the resources are limited.
JUDGE LEE: Mr. Summerfield, just to make sure I understand you, so your position is that the claim requires Case IPR2015-01140 Patent 6,519,659 that the writing be independent of any and all post-boot application programs.
If the RAM has instruction sequences on it and it has a storage element on it, namely the backup BIOS being Case IPR2015-01140 Patent 6,519,659 transferred, yes, it came from somewhere else originally, but why does that matter with respect to the claim?
Finally, with Christeson we heard -- JUDGE LEE: Before you move on from Noll, Mr. Ganti, does the secondary BIOS ROM contain instruction sequences as that term is used in the claims of the '659 patent?
When a CMOS RAM device fails it is because the battery can run out, but it is still characterized as non- volatile storage, and for that reason it does persistently store data for its intended purpose.
cite Cite Document

32 Order Conduct of Proceeding: ORDER Conduct of the Proceedings Oral Argument

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 32 Order Conduct of Proceeding - ORDER Conduct of the Proceedings Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)
American Megatrends, Inc., Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., MSI Computer Corp., Giga-Byte Technology, Co., Ltd., and G.B.T., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) has requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70.
Therefore, at oral hearing Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with regard to the challenged claims on which basis we instituted trial.
Specifically, the hearing will commence at 1:00 PM on August 9, 2016 on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
Any issue regarding demonstrative exhibits should be resolved at least three days prior to the hearing by way of a joint telephone conference call to the Board.
The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
cite Cite Document

30 Order: Order 37 CFR 425

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 30 Order - Order 37 CFR 425 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
Patent Owner requests an extension of time to oppose Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude one or more deposition transcripts filed IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, and IPR2015-01191.
We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be docketed in each case.
So that we may consider the parties’ arguments in full, and in view of the circumstances of these related cases, we authorize Patent Owner to file an Opposition in each of IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, and IPR2015-01191 on or before close of business July 27, 2016.
Both parties may include in their papers contentions regarding Patent Owner’s late filing and recommended action, if any.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude one or more deposition transcripts in each of IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, and IPR2015-01191 no later than close of business July 27, 2016; and FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition in each of IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, IPR2015-01140, and IPR2015-01191 no later than close of business July 29, 2016.
cite Cite Document

26 Order: Order Granting Patent Owners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Christopher H St Peter

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 26 Order - Order Granting Patent Owners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Christopher H St Peter (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)
Kinglite Holding, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) moves for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Christopher H. St. Peter in accordance with 37 CFR 42.10 in each of the identified proceedings.
In authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board also requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding.
Christopher H. St. Peter provides uncontroverted testimony that he: is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State
Counsel for Patent Owner in each proceeding, who is registered to practice at the USPTO, has provided a statement of facts that Mr. St. Peter is an experienced litigator, has reviewed the patents at issue and the prior art, and is familiar with the subject matter of the proceedings.
Thus, Patent Owner has shown good cause why Christopher H. St. Peter should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding.
cite Cite Document

21 Notice: Order 37 CFR 4210

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 21 Notice - Order 37 CFR 4210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)
Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of George C. Summerfield
Patent Owner moves for pro hac vice admission of Mr. George C. Summerfield.
Based on the facts set forth in the motions and the accompanying affidavits from Mr. Summerfield, we conclude that Mr. Summerfield has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in these cases, that Mr. Summerfield has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the subject matter of these cases, and that there is a need for Patent Owner to have counsel with experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters involved in these cases.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr. George C. Summerfield are granted, and Mr. Summerfield is authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in these cases; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in these cases; FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summerfield comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summerfield is subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
cite Cite Document

16 Order: Order Granting Petitioners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Steven G Hill 37 CFR 4210

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 16 Order - Order Granting Petitioners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Steven G Hill 37 CFR 4210 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)
Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Steven G. Hill
Petitioner moves for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Steven G. Hill.
Based on the facts set forth in the motions and the accompanying affidavits from Mr. Hill, we conclude that Mr. Hill has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in these cases, that Mr. Hill has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the subject matter of these cases, and that there is a need for Petitioner to have counsel with experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters involved in these cases.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Steven G. Hill are granted, and Mr. Hill is authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in these cases; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in these cases; FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hill comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hill is subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 >>