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

Olympus Corporation v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG

Docket IPR2017-01617, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 16, 2017)
Jennifer Bisk, Joni Chang, Miriam Quinn, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6895449
Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
Petitioner Olympus Corporation
Petitioner Olympus America
cite Cite Docket

Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Papst Licensing GmgH & Co. KG

Docket IPR2017-00448, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 8, 2016)
Jennifer Bisk, Joni Chang, Miriam Quinn, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6895449
Petitioner Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmgH & Co. KG
Petitioner Zte
...
cite Cite Docket

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 6,895,449

Docket IPR2017-00415, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 6, 2016)
Jennifer Bisk, Joni Chang, Miriam Quinn, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6895449
Petitioner Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co, KG
Petitioner Zte
...
cite Cite Docket

32 Termination Decision Document: Judgment Termination of Proceeding

Document IPR2017-00415, No. 32 Termination Decision Document - Judgment Termination of Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)
Petitioner, ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE”), and Patent Owner, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”), jointly move to terminate this inter partes review in light of their settlement that resolves their dispute regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2 (“the ’449 patent”).
The parties also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement in connection with the termination as required by 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
Notably, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), in part, provides the following (emphasis added): (a) IN GENERAL.—An inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.
Although this inter partes review has been instituted, the proceeding is still in the briefing stage.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that this review is terminated as to all parties including ZTE and Papst; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information and to keep such settlement agreement separate from the patent file, and to make it available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.
cite Cite Document

29 Termination: Decision Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to Petitioner Olympus Corporation and Olympus America, Inc

Document IPR2017-00415, No. 29 Termination - Decision Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to Petitioner Olympus Corporation and Olympus America, Inc (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2018)
Olympus and Papst also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement in connection with the termination as required by 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, settlement between the parties to a proceeding is encouraged.
Notably, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), in part, provides the following (emphasis added): (a) IN GENERAL.—An inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.
Here, although the instant inter partes review has been instituted, we have not entered a final written decision in this proceeding.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate, with respect to Olympus, is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that this review is terminated with respect to Olympus only; but this review continues with Papst and the remaining Petitioner; FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information and to keep such settlement agreement separate from the patent file, and to make it available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that any subsequent papers filed in this inter partes review should not include Olympus in the caption.
cite Cite Document

8 Termination Settlement After Institution: Settlement after Institution Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2017-01617, No. 8 Termination Settlement After Institution - Settlement after Institution Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2018)
Olympus and Papst also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement in connection with the termination as required by 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, settlement between the parties to a proceeding is encouraged.
Notably, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), in part, provides the following (emphasis added): (a) IN GENERAL.—An inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.
Here, although the instant inter partes review has been instituted, we have not entered a final written decision in this proceeding.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate, with respect to Olympus, is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that this review is terminated with respect to Olympus only; but this review continues with Papst and the remaining Petitioner; FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information and to keep such settlement agreement separate from the patent file, and to make it available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that any subsequent papers filed in this inter partes review should not include Olympus in the caption.
cite Cite Document

25 Order: Decision Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to LG Electronics, Inc

Document IPR2017-00415, No. 25 Order - Decision Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to LG Electronics, Inc (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017)
Petitioner, LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”), and Patent Owner, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”), jointly move to terminate the instant inter partes review with respect to LG in light of the settlement between LG and Papst that resolves their dispute regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2 (“the ’449 patent”).
LG and Papst also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement in connection with the termination as required by 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
Notably, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), in part, provides the following (emphasis added): (a) IN GENERAL.—An inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.
Here, although the instant inter partes review has been instituted, we have not entered a final written decision in this proceeding.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate, with respect to LG, is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that this review is terminated with respect to LG only; but this review continues to proceed with respect to Papst and the remaining Petitioners; FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information and to keep such settlement agreement separate from the patent file, and to make it available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that any subsequent papers filed in this inter partes review should not include LG in the caption.
cite Cite Document

22 Order: Granting Petitioners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice ofAndrew V Dev...

Document IPR2017-00415, No. 22 Order - Granting Petitioners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice ofAndrew V Devkar37 CFR sec 4210 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 12 13 >>