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

LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc.

Docket 1:19-cv-01245, Delaware District Court (July 1, 2019)
Judge Leonard P. Stark, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsSTAYED, CLOSED, ADMINCLOSING, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT
Cause35:1 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
8102256; 8421618; 8421619; 8497774; 8542113
8102256842161884216198497774
8542113
Plaintiff LBT IP I LLC
Defendant Apple Inc.
Counter Claimant Apple Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC

Docket IPR2020-01190, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 22, 2020)
John Hudalla, Juliet Mitchell Dirba, Sheila McShane, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8542113
Patent Owner LBT IP I LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

44 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 44 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)
Whenthe strength of the device’s GPS signal is below a predetermined threshold value—for example, when the de- vice’s access to GPSsatellites is partially or fully blocked— portions of the location tracking circuitry may be deac- tivated to conserve battery power.
In his deposition, for example, Mr. Andrews repeatedly used qualifying language such as “presumably,” “maybe,” and “might” when he explained that although the GPSre- ceiver is deactivated when in the stop-position mode, a skilled artisan would understand Sakamoto turns on com- ponents of the GPSreceiverto cyclically measure the signal level.
The fact that Document: 39 Page:9 Filed: 06/09/2023 LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC. the GPS receiver cannot automatically transition out of stop-position mode in the cycle set in advance embodiment does not render Sakamoto’s device useless becausethe re- ceiver can be turned on manually.
In concluding otherwise, the Board relied on the following passage: “Advantageously as com- pared to conventional tracking devices, user input request 430 adjusts value 419 to select an appropriate update set Document: 39 Page:12 Filed: 06/09/2023 LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC. of network communication signaling protocols to achieve a desired user defined battery operating environment, e.g., obtain optimal battery life, obtain optimal update rate, tradeoffs between them.” Id. at 11:58—67 (emphasis added).
As relevant on appeal, the Board found Apple’s pro- posed combination of Miranda-Knapp and Miller discloses the claim limitation reciting “a battery power monitor con- figured to activate and deactivate at least one portion of signaling circuitry in response to the accelerometer cir- cuitry detecting a substantially stationary position of the electronic tracking device.” ‘619 Decision, at *8—-12.
cite Cite Document

45 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 45 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)
Document:41 Page:1_ Filed: 07/17/2023 GAnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appellee 2022-1613, 2022-1614, 2022-1615, 2022-1616, 2022-1617 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
In accordance with the judgmentof this Court, entered June 9, 2028, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
July 17, 2023 Date
cite Cite Document

No. 17 SCHEDULING ORDER: Case referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of exploring ADR

Document LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:19-cv-01245, No. 17 (D.Del. Feb. 26, 2020)
Scheduling Order
As to the format selected, the parties should confirm the Court' s technical abilities to access the information contained in the tutorial ( currently best are "mpeg" or "quicktime").
Subsequent to exchanging that list, the parties will meet and confer to prepare a Joint Claim Construction Chart to be submitted on November 20, 2020.
If the Court is unable to meet this goal, it will advise the parties no later than sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the claim construction hearing.
On March 19, 2021 , counsel shall submit a joint letter to the Court with an interim report on the nature of the matters in issue and the progress of discovery to date.
This submission shall be accompanied by a courtesy copy containing electronic files of these documents, in WordPerfect or Microsoft Word format, which may be submitted by e-mail to Judge Stark's staff.
cite Cite Document

No. 39 Joint STATUS REPORT Regarding IPR Proceedings by Apple Inc

Document LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:19-cv-01245, No. 39 (D.Del. Mar. 24, 2022)
Plaintiff, LBT IP I LLC (“LBT”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) jointly submit this update to advise the Court of the status of the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings involving all asserted patents and claims in the case that were commenced by Apple Inc. before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”).
LBT intends to challenge the FWDs through a request for rehearing with the PTAB and/or an appeal with the Federal Circuit.
The deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit is 63 days after action on a request for rehearing or 63 days from the date of the FWDs (May 4, 2022) if no request for rehearing is filed.
Until there is a final decision on all of LBT’s appeals, the parties understand that the case will remain administratively closed under the Court’s oral order.
The parties shall provide a written update to the Court within five (5) business days of the date of final disposition, including any appeals, of the last instituted IPR petitions, pursuant to the Court’s August 25, 2020 Order granting the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Case Pending IPR Resolution
cite Cite Document

42 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Decision

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 42 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)
Petitioner contends that modifying the accelerometer in the combined Sakamoto–Gotoh system to perform Levi’s dead reckoning steps uses a known technique in a similar device to obtain a predictable result, namely, “determining position via acceleration measurements when GPS is unavailable.” Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 202).
In light of these teachings, we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to associate an attenuated signal below a predetermined threshold value (as discussed in claim 1) with antenna shading due to being in a partially or substantially enclosed structure.
For the “primary location tracking circuitry consumes at least reduced power,” Petitioner cites Gronemeyer’s teaching of shutting down certain components during sleep mode, including oscillator 204, radio 202, clocks generator 216, and GPS signal processors 208.
We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected success in making this modification based on Mr. Andrews’s uncontested testimony and because Gronemeyer itself states that the low power time keeping circuit components were “commercially available and relatively inexpensive.” Ex. 1077, 12:62–64; Ex. 1080 ¶¶ 37–39.
Specifically, Petitioner establishes that Gronemeyer teaches a sleep mode where “low power time keeping circuit 200 ‘remains on’ even when ‘[s]elected components residing on the GPS receiver unit’ are ‘shut down (deactivated) to conserve power.’” MTA Opp.
cite Cite Document

41 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 41 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2022)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 15 16 17 >>