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

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Docket 6:21-cv-00121, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 4, 2021)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsCLOSED, PATENT, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7933431
819492485530798878949
Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Defendant Apple, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2021-00920, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 21, 2021)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, Kristi Sawert, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Petitioner Google
...
cite Cite Docket

No. 42 ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion to Transfer Case Signed by Judge Alan D Albright

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 42 (W.D.Tex. Aug. 22, 2022)
The public factors include: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Id. Courts evaluate these factors based on the situation which existed at the time of filing, rather than relying on hindsight knowledge of the defendant’s forum preference.
The size of Apple’s Austin campus, job openings, and “chip” development are not factors which, by themselves, demonstrate that potentially relevant employee witnesses, or physical documents for that matter, are located in the WDTX.
As has been explained repeatedly, it is improper for movants to seek transfer but fail to provide sufficient discovery or conduct thorough investigations as to sources of proof and witnesses within the transferor forum.
“[W]here there is a co-pending litigation ... involving the same patent-in-suit, … pertaining to the same underlying technology and accusing similar services, ... the Federal Circuit cannot say the trial court clearly abuses its discretion in denying transfer.” In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d at 1346 n.3.
Apple maintains that this factor strongly favors transfer for three reasons: “(1) Apple’s work on the research, design, development, and operation of the accused features primarily takes place there; (2) Apple’s headquarters are located there; and, (3) all of Apple’s likely witnesses are based there.
cite Cite Document

No. 32 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TOCOMPEL FURTHER VENUE DISCOVERY

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 32 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 30, 2021)
On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC served on Apple written venue and jurisdictional discovery pertaining to Apple’s motion, including Requests for Production.
Documents sufficient to identify all Apple employees, agents, contractors, or other proxies who have (a) worked in, (b) resided in, or (c) supported or worked on Apple physical equipment or software located in the Texas ... , including, … documents sufficient to identify each employee’s name, title, ... a description of the employee’s responsibilities, ... employment.
Documents sufficient to show any development, support, programming, design or sales and marketing of the Accused Products or Features located in or accessible in Texas during the Relevant Time Period.
Identification of employees in nine groups listed in Apple’s venue declaration who Apple claims were instrumental in developing Accused Products.
Based on this review and the representations from Apple, the Court DENIES Gesture’s motion to compel as to Gesture’s Request for Production Nos. 2, 5, and 9, and the additional categories of documents 1- 4 reproduced above.
cite Cite Document

28 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 28 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2022)
If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] ... the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Patent Owner argues that “Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis of a target object and control the computer, so it does not teach or suggest ‘determining’ finger movement from reflected light that is ‘electro-optically’ sensed using one ‘sensor means,’ as set forth in [the] claim.” PO Resp. 13.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the determining movement claim element.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the computer means claim element.
Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s fifth embodiment teaches a “conference record system” or TV telephone and that “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement this transmission functionality in the portable device described in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment.” Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:6–16, 40:16–49; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 50–52, 58): id. at 33–34.
cite Cite Document

27 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 27 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2022)
So in a high precision application like controlling objects in a laptop environment such as is depicted in Numazaki in the 8th embodiment Dr. Bederson analyzed the benefits of maybe adding a ring to improve detection.
Patent 7,933,431 B2 8,553,079 B2 embodiments you’re relying on here in figure 8 are laptops and palm tops and they all seem to show a, you know, a gesture that’s fairly close to the device which kind of makes sense because it’s taking, you know, a picture which has to be illuminated to do this difference.
As we see on DX-4, claims 1, 7 and 14 each recite some form of imaging that captures movement of an object such as a user’s finger so that the user can perform device control through hand gestures and as we saw in the ‘079 proceeding, we are relying on Numazaki’s 8th embodiment to satisfy those limitations.
Patent Owner did not elaborate on how reducing video frames to one hundredth the original size would have no impact on the overall bandwidth and that’s simply a technically illogical conclusion to reach.
Your Honor asked a pointed question what evidence has Patent Owner presented in this case that rebuts Dr. Bederson’s analysis of Numazaki’s 5th embodiment and its conclusion that the portable TV telephone is in fact a cell phone.
cite Cite Document

No. 12 Standing Order Regarding Filing Documents Under Seal and Redacted Pleadings in Patent Cases

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 12 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 12, 2021)
Standing Order
Nevertheless, parties in patent cases routinely produce and rely on information that is confidential.
Therefore, in all patent cases pending before the undersigned, the Court hereby grants leave for any party to file materials containing confidential information under seal without filing a separate motion seeking leave of the Court to do so.
The parties need not file redacted versions of exhibits to such documents.
The publicly available version shall be labeled “PUBLIC VERSION.” Cooperating to file the public version shall not be deemed as agreeing that the redacted information is actually confidential.
This Order shall apply in all patent cases, but shall not require parties to file public versions of pleadings filed before the date of this Order.
cite Cite Document

24 Other other: ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR 4270

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 24 Other other - ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR 4270 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2022)
The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearings, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearings.4 Each party will have 60 minutes of argument time.
Either party may request that a qualifying LEAP practitioner participate in the program and conduct at least a portion of the party’s oral argument.
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
During the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 11 AM Mountain Time on September 13, 2022 by Video, and proceed in the manner set forth herein.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>