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

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Vidal

Docket 1:22-cv-00622, Virginia Eastern District Court (May 27, 2022)
District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr, presiding, Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson
Patent
DivisionAlexandria
FlagsPATENT
Cause05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7933431
819492485530798878949
Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Defendant Katherine K. Vidal
cite Cite Docket

GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL.

Docket 2:21-cv-19234, New Jersey District Court (Oct. 22, 2021)
Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer
Patent
DivisionNewark
FlagsSCHEDO, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7804530; 7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7804530
7933431
819492485530798878949
Plaintiff GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC
Defendant LG ELECTRONIC INC.
Defendant LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
...
cite Cite Docket

No. 148 OPINION and ORDER denying 100 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 148 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2024)
Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsDenied
LG offers this summary of its argument, quoted here in its entirety, at step one: Claim 4 is not “inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus,” and the patent itself acknowledges that taking photographs in response to observable cues-such as a subject posing-has long been practiced in the human mind.
• FIG. 3 illustrates a self timer like mode, or when specific dates or other circumstances exist, including a system embodiment for taking pictures in shopping malls or other locales and providing instant print or other hardcopy capability (e.g. on a tee shirt).
Case 2:21-cv-19234-SRC-MAH Document 148 Filed 12/23/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 3060 These specification statements support the inference that an important aspect of the functioning of the invention is the capacity to enable photography subjects themselves to issue gestural commands to a device in order to have a photograph taken.
LG has failed to persuade that the method that can be inferred from claim 4 (which includes gestural image capture commands) is nothing more than the long prevalent fundamental practice of photography in response to observable cues.
Pursuant to Astellas and Berkheimer, this specification statement in a valid patent is sufficient to raise a factual dispute over whether Case 2:21-cv-19234-SRC-MAH Document 148 Filed 12/23/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 3069 the combination of elements in claim 4 is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field.
cite Cite Document

No. 144 OPINION & ORDER denying 127 Plaintiff's Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order; Affirming the ...

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 144 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2024)
This Court will not dissect the definition of the word “original” because the record shows – and, indeed, Gesture’s appeal brief states this – that the first set of infringement contentions was filed by Gesture while this case was proceeding in the Western District of Texas in July of 2021.
The first argument seems to rely on the idea that something about the transfer itself to the District of New Jersey nullified or wiped clean the history of the case in Texas, although Gesture cites no law in support.
There is also a suggestion that, by submitting a proposed joint scheduling order, the parties stipulated to an erasure of the preceding case history; if this is indeed what Gesture has in mind, again there are no law or facts cited in support.1
Lastly, there is Gesture’s argument based on a district court decision in California, Life Techs., which it presented to the Magistrate Judge in the brief in support of its original motion to amend.
Gesture has submitted no facts – new or otherwise – to explain why or how that Case 2:21-cv-19234-SRC-MAH Document 144 Filed 11/13/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 3051 position changed, or to justify a remarkably blatant effort to resurrect an infringement claim that it had previously indicated had been abandoned.
cite Cite Document

No. 124 OPINION

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 124 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2024)
One salient purpose of such early disclosure is “to further the goal of full, timely discovery and provide all parties with adequate notice and information with which to litigate their cases.” King Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 08-5974, 2010 WL 2015258, at *4 (D.N.J. May 20, 2010) (quoting Computer Accelerations Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 503 F. Supp.
LG argues that after LG sought inter partes review by the PTAB, Gesture abandoned the ’530 patent by not including it in the infringement contentions served on July 16, 2021.
Therefore, LG asserts that if the Court allowed the amendment, it would have to re-open discovery, and LG would have to spend a significant amount of time and resources reviewing and responding to the new infringement contentions and preparing its defenses for trial.
Under Local Patent Rule 3.1, a party must disclose the asserted claims and infringement contentions not later than fourteen days after the initial scheduling conference.
U.S.A., Inc., No. 12-952, 2012 WL 5818143, at *7 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2012) (describing the purpose of Local Patent Rule 3.1 is “to further the goal of full, timely discovery and provide all parties with adequate notice and information with which to litigate their cases”).
cite Cite Document

No. 50 OPINION

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 50 (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2022)
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) that have been filed before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
Here, LG filed requests to join the Apple IPRs nine months after GTP commenced this litigation, and not long after the transfer issue had been resolved in the Western District of Texas.
The Court finds that it was reasonable for LG to undertake an investigation into the allegations against it, the claims of the Asserted Patents, as well as the prior art before deciding to file IPR petitions, joinder requests, and moving to stay this litigation.
This can “minimize the risk of inconsistent results and conserve resources,” as there is “little benefit to be gained from having two forums review the validity of the same claims at the same time.” Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-04201, 2014 WL 93954, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Further, GTP argues that even if the case is in its nascent stages, this fact weighs against a stay, “as it prolongs the prejudice that would be suffered by GTP given LG’s deliberate litigation tactics to delay the case.” Id. As LG aptly mentions in its brief, “courts are more willing to stay a case in its early stages pending IPR proceedings because it can advance judicial efficiency by conserving resources expended by the parties and the Court on claims that may subsequently be found invalid.” Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Sols., Inc., No. 15-7025, 2016 WL 7165695, at *8 (D.N.J. Dec. 7, 2016); Defs.’ Brief in Supp., Nov. 24, 2021, D.E.
cite Cite Document

No. 17 MOTION to Dismiss by Katherine K. Vidal

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Vidal, 1:22-cv-00622, No. 17 (E.D.Va. Aug. 5, 2022)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Defendant, Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The grounds for this motion are set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law.
Dated: August 5, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
cite Cite Document

No. 1 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AVAEDC-8409762

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Vidal, 1:22-cv-00622, No. 1 (E.D.Va. May. 27, 2022)
Complaint
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, in her official capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant.
In exercising its “significant latitude,” Congress grants public franchises “subject to the qualification that the PTO has the authority to reexamine—and perhaps cancel—a patent claim in an inter partes review.” Id. at 1368, 1374 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Permanently enjoin Defendant, and her officers, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with her from continuing the IPRs against the expired GTP Patents;
Issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant, and her officers, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with him from continuing the ex parte reexaminations of the expired GTP Patents;
Permanently enjoin Defendant, and her officers, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with her from continuing the ex parte reexaminations of the expired GTP Patents;
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 >>