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

Vonage Holdings Corporation, et al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.

Docket IPR2014-01225, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 1, 2014)
Bart Gerstenblith, Kalyan Deshpande, Thomas Giannetti, Trenton Ward, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6009469
Petitioner Vonage Holdings Corporation, et al.
Patent Owner Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
Assignee STRAIGHT PATH COMMUNICATIONS INC.
...
cite Cite Docket

Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. ooVoo, LLC

Docket 2:12-cv-00008, Virginia Eastern District Court ()
District Judge Robert G. Doumar, presiding, Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller
Patent
DemandPlaintiff
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6009469; 6513066; 6701365
6009469
65130666701365
Plaintiff Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc.
Defendant ooVoo, LLC
cite Cite Docket

Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. Vivox, Inc.

Docket 2:12-cv-00007, Virginia Eastern District Court ()
District Judge Robert G. Doumar, presiding, Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard
Patent
DemandPlaintiff
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6009469; 6108704; 6131121; 6513066; 6701365
6009469
6108704613112165130666701365
Plaintiff Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc.
Defendant Vivox, Inc.
Counter Defendant Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket

Sony Corporation v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.

Docket IPR2014-00231, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 5, 2013)
Bryan Moore, Miriam Quinn, Stacey White, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6009469
Petitioner Sony Corporation
Patent Owner Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
Assignee STRAIGHT PATH COMMUNICATIONS INC.
...
cite Cite Docket

14 Refund Approval: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2014-01225, No. 14 Refund Approval - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015)
Mailed: February 10, 2015 Before Cathy Underwood, Trial Paralegal
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on August 1, 2014 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $14,000 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
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 6,009,469 Patent Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

No. 51 OPINION AND ORDER regarding claim construction terms

Document Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. Vivox, Inc., 2:12-cv-00007, No. 51 (E.D.Va. Oct. 26, 2012)
Motion for Claim Construction
Those sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” I_d, (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court FINDS that the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim tenn “network protocol address,” as understood by a person of skill in the art when read in the context ofthe entire patent, is readily apparent even to a layperson.
In their claim construction brief, the defendants contended that this term should be construed to mean “floppy disks, magnetic tapes, compact disks, or other storage media.” At hearing, the defendants verbally amended their proposed construction to add “hard disks” to the list of items they consider to be included within the scope of “computer usable medium.” The Court FINDS that the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “computer usable medium,” as understood by a person of skill in the art when read in the context of the entire patent, is readily apparent even to a layperson.
The Court FINDS that the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms “off-line message” and “online message” or “on-line message,” as understood by a person of skill in the art when read in the context of the entire patent, is readily apparent even to a layperson.
In their claim construction brief, the defendants contended that this term should be construed to mean “the server retrieves the network protocol address and identifiers from its database and sends it to the another [sic] process.
cite Cite Document

No. 48 OPINION AND ORDER that the Court hereby DENIES Vivox's Motion to Transfer Venue and Stalker's ...

Document Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. ooVoo, LLC, 2:12-cv-00008, No. 48 (E.D.Va. Oct. 3, 2012)
Defendants Vivox and Stalker have both filed Motions to Transfer Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) alleging that Plaintiff and this action have no meaningful connection to the Eastern District of Virginia.
Vivox further states that one employee works from a home- based office in Texas and that is has no physical presence outside of Massachusetts other than a server collocation space leased in New York, NY.
Although Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint that its principal place of business is located in Arlington, VA within the Eastern District, Vivox and Stalker argue that this is a non-permanent, virtual office.
Inc., 635 F.3d 559, 562 (Fed. Cir. 2011) for the proposition that transfer is appropriate even where a trial court has some familiarity with a matter from prior litigation or has actually previously issued a claim construction order in a case involving the same patent.
Having considered and given appropriate weight to Plaintiffs choice of forum, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice, the Court denies Defendants Vivox and Stalker's motions to transfer venue at this time.
cite Cite Document

No. 43 OPINION AND ORDER that the Court hereby DENIES Vivox's Motion to Transfer Venue and Stalker's ...

Document Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. Vivox, Inc., 2:12-cv-00007, No. 43 (E.D.Va. Oct. 3, 2012)
Defendants Vivox and Stalker have both filed Motions to Transfer Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) alleging that Plaintiff and this action have no meaningful connection to the Eastern District of Virginia.
Vivox further states that one employee works from a home- based office in Texas and that is has no physical presence outside of Massachusetts other than a server collocation space leased in New York, NY.
Although Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint that its principal place of business is located in Arlington, VA within the Eastern District, Vivox and Stalker argue that this is a non-permanent, virtual office.
Inc., 635 F.3d 559, 562 (Fed. Cir. 2011) for the proposition that transfer is appropriate even where a trial court has some familiarity with a matter from prior litigation or has actually previously issued a claim construction order in a case involving the same patent.
Having considered and given appropriate weight to Plaintiffs choice of forum, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice, the Court denies Defendants Vivox and Stalker's motions to transfer venue at this time.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 >>