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

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

Docket IPR2017-00415, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 6, 2016)

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

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 Devkar37 CFR sec 4210

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)
Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Andrew V. Devkar
Petitioner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Andrew V. Devkar (Paper 19), supported by a Declaration of Mr. Devkar (Paper 202), in the instant proceedings.
In authorizing motions for pro hac vice, we require the moving party to provide a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in the proceedings.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Devkar are granted; Mr. Devkar is authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in the above-identified proceedings; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for these proceedings; and FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Devkar is to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as
2 Mr. Devkar’s Declaration should have been filed as a separate exhibit and labeled correctly in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
cite Cite Document

17 Order: Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 425

Document IPR2017-00415, No. 17 Order - Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 425 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017)
Olympus requested the conference call to seek (1) the authorization to file Petitioner’s Replies and cross-examine Papst’s declarant, Mr. Thomas A. Gafford; and (2) discovery of Mr. Gafford’s deposition transcript from a related district court proceeding.
Permitting Olympus to File Petitioner’s Replies and Participate in Discovery Olympus indicated that LG and ZTE are in the process of finalizing a settlement with Papst, and do not intend to file a Reply to Papst’s Patent Owner Response (Paper 14) or to participate in further discovery, in each of the instant IPR proceedings.
Upon inquiry, LG and ZTE further confirmed that they will work together with Olympus to ensure that Petitioner’s filings, discovery, and oral arguments at the hearing will be consolidated.
Based on the statements presented by the parties, we authorize Olympus to file the Petitioner’s Reply, participate in discovery, and present oral argument at the hearing in each IPR proceeding, but no separate filing, deposition, or oral argument from Petitioner is permitted without prior authorization.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Olympus is authorized to file the Petitioner’s Reply, participate in discovery, and present oral argument at the hearing in each instant IPR proceeding, but no separate filing, deposition, or oral argument from Petitioner is permitted without prior authorization.
cite Cite Document

15 Order: Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2017 01617 and Grant of Motion for Joinder

Document IPR2017-00415, No. 15 Order - Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2017 01617 and Grant of Motion for Joinder (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)
Petitioner also concurrently filed a Motion for Joinder, seeking to join this proceeding with LG Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA) Inc., v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Case IPR2017-00415 (“the LG IPR”).
For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 12, 13, and 15−18 of the ’449 patent, and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
No changes in the schedule are anticipated or necessary, and the limited participation, if at all, of Petitioner will not impact the timeline of the ongoing trial.
We limit Petitioner’s participation in the joined proceeding, such that Petitioner shall require prior authorization from the panel before filing any further paper.
This arrangement promotes the just and efficient administration of the ongoing trial and the interests of Petitioner and Patent Owner.
cite Cite Document

13 Order: Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to Petitioner Huawei Device Co, Lt...

Document IPR2017-00415, No. 13 Order - Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to Petitioner Huawei Device Co, Ltd37 CFR Sec 4274 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 >>