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

J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company v. Sauder Manufacturing Company

Docket IPR2015-00958, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 27, 2015)
James Worth, Josiah Cocks, Linda Horner, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8585136
Petitioner J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company
Patent Owner Sauder Manufacturing Company
cite Cite Docket

J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company v. Sauder Manufacturing Company

Docket IPR2015-00774, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 19, 2015)
James Worth, Josiah Cocks, Linda Horner, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8585136
Petitioner J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company
Patent Owner Sauder Manufacturing Company
cite Cite Docket

38 Order: CAFC Termination of Appeal

Document IPR2015-00958, No. 38 Order - CAFC Termination of Appeal (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
J SQUARED, INC. v. SAUDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY Upon consideration thereof,
2) Each party shall bear their own fees and costs.
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 25, 2017
cite Cite Document

38 Order: CAFC Termination of Appeal

Document IPR2015-00774, No. 38 Order - CAFC Termination of Appeal (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
J SQUARED, INC. v. SAUDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY Upon consideration thereof,
2) Each party shall bear their own fees and costs.
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 25, 2017
cite Cite Document

35 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2015-00958, No. 35 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)
The Federal Circuit reversed, noting that “French teaches a liquid strainer which relies, at least in part, upon the assistance of gravity to separate undesired dirt and water from gasoline and other light oils.” Id. (explaining that “if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose”).
In response, Sauder argues that J Squared has failed to provide adequate evidence or reasoning to support a proposed modification to substitute the latch mechanism of Kassai for the bolts of Yu in the manner claimed.
J Squared provides insufficient evidence or reasoning to show that one of ordinary skill in the art, aware of the safety considerations involved with coupling a chair to a base, would have been motivated to replace the bolts of Yu with such a latch mechanism.
With respect to this limitation of independent claim 12, J Squared asserted that Yu provides a way to detachably fasten the chair to the base, e.g., via plate 40, support rods 112, and bolts, and alternatively, Kassai shows latches 18 and 19.
Secondary Considerations Sauder argues that commercial success, industry praise, and evidence of copying indicate that the subject matter of the claims would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
cite Cite Document

35 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2015-00774, No. 35 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)
Patent 8,585,136 B2 construed “assembly,” “positioned below,” “structured so as to function as rockers,” “coupled,” “engaged,” “first configuration,” “accessible,” “perimeter edge ... with a rotationally asymmetric geometry,”5 “latch moving between closed and open positions,” “pedestal that ... includes a connector,” and “means for releasably engaging said chair to said base portion.” Dec. 10‒22.
The ’136 patent shows a preferred embodiment of saddle 310 having a flat surface with a specially configured perimeter edge and that fits, in at least one orientation, between the rocker legs and cooperatively receives the latch and claw to engage with and be coupled to the seat structure.
For example, Sauder cites to the description provided in column 6, lines 35‒62 of the ’136 patent as support for its assertion that the claim must be read to encompass only an instances in which the rockers are formed integrally with the base legs.
For the reasons provided supra, we interpret the structure corresponding to the “manually operable means” to cover the claw 142 and latch 160 and equivalents thereof for performing the recited function of “releasably engaging said chair to said base portion.”
Sauder further argues that because Mackey’s saddle has upwardly projecting rims on the sides and an extension 4 on the back, such a configuration “would discourage reasonable persons from using the cabinet top as a sitting surface.” Id. Mackey discloses in Figures 1‒3 the claimed subject matter.
cite Cite Document

34 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2015-00958, No. 34 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)
So at the top of column 9 it is this discussion of engaging versus disengaging where it makes clear that, well, in some instances you can put the chair back and open the latch or you can by force operate the spring.
So if you are looking at Yu, and you want to change out the bolts and you are one of skill in the art and you know of all of the different ways to releasably engage something, and one of them is the clamp from Kasai, that's just a wealth of knowledge that you would draw upon in the same field of endeavor.
And we know from the deposition of the CEO the reason they weren't selling is because people were going out and buying chairs that looked different, that had more aesthetic appeal, that had tilt and swivel mechanisms, that had height adjustments.
And so I would like to give you an opportunity now to address a bodily incorporation discussion and say, well, you know, it seems like your complaint is that the rocker bottom is not attached to the legs in the way that you are saying would have been done by a person of ordinary skill.
JUDGE HORNER: Can you respond to his point that the Bontrager declaration with regard to the evidence of copying included a detailed discussion of the Wave chair as compared to the claim?
cite Cite Document

34 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2015-00774, No. 34 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)
So at the top of column 9 it is this discussion of engaging versus disengaging where it makes clear that, well, in some instances you can put the chair back and open the latch or you can by force operate the spring.
So if you are looking at Yu, and you want to change out the bolts and you are one of skill in the art and you know of all of the different ways to releasably engage something, and one of them is the clamp from Kasai, that's just a wealth of knowledge that you would draw upon in the same field of endeavor.
And we know from the deposition of the CEO the reason they weren't selling is because people were going out and buying chairs that looked different, that had more aesthetic appeal, that had tilt and swivel mechanisms, that had height adjustments.
And so I would like to give you an opportunity now to address a bodily incorporation discussion and say, well, you know, it seems like your complaint is that the rocker bottom is not attached to the legs in the way that you are saying would have been done by a person of ordinary skill.
JUDGE HORNER: Can you respond to his point that the Bontrager declaration with regard to the evidence of copying included a detailed discussion of the Wave chair as compared to the claim?
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>