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

Canon Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG

Docket IPR2018-00410, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 29, 2017)
Jennifer Bisk, Joni Chang, Miriam Quinn, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6895449
Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
Petitioner Canon Inc.
Petitioner Nikon
...
cite Cite Docket

17 Refund Approval: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2018-00410, No. 17 Refund Approval - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on December 29, 2017, in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $14,400.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

15 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2018-00410, No. 15 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2018)
Petitioner concurrently filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 5, “Mot.”), seeking to be joined to ZTE (USA) Inc. v Papst Licensing GMBH, Case No. IPR2017-00415 (the “ZTE IPR”).
In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion to Waive or Suspend Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.122.
Because the dismissal of both of Petitioner’s motions determines the outcome of the Petition in this case, we need not wait for Patent Owner’s response.
The parties indicate that the ’449 patent has been asserted in cases taking place in several district courts.
There is no dispute that Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’449 patent more than one year before it filed its Petition.
cite Cite Document

10 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Accord Filing Date

Document IPR2018-00410, No. 10 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

cite Cite Document

6 Other Not for motions: Motion to Waive or Suspend Rule

Document IPR2018-00410, No. 6 Other Not for motions - Motion to Waive or Suspend Rule (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
Movants respectfully request that the Board waive or suspend the customary one-month-from-institution deadline for filing a motion to join an inter partes review to combat the gamesmanship of Papst, the patent owner, and to conserve the scarce resources of the Federal Judiciary currently being expended in two separate district court campaigns.
Terminating IPR2017-00415 would allow Papst to continue its litigation campaign in the MDL case and the Eastern District of Texas against some of the largest camera, mobile phone, and tablet manufacturers in the world.
There is no other reasonable explanation for Olympus, who has fought against Papst’s infringement allegations for over a decade, and whose case is effectively stayed at district court pending a claim construction ruling, to have settled at this stage.
The continued burden on the defendants and the Federal Judiciary in the MDL and Eastern District of Texas litigation (if the motion is denied) is a highly pertinent fact in considering the interests of justice in this case and justifies allowing Movants to step into the shoes of the now settled existing Petitioners in IPR2017-00415.
Movants respectfully submit that it is in the interest of justice, and good cause exists for suspending or waiving the rule requiring that motions for joinder be brought within one month of the date of institution.
cite Cite Document

7 Motion: Motion for Joinder with IPR2017 00415

Document IPR2018-00410, No. 7 Motion - Motion for Joinder with IPR2017 00415 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
As more fully explained in the accompanying Petitioner’s Motion to Waive or Suspend Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.122, it is in the interest of justice, and good cause exists for Petitioner to be allowed to join the Pending IPR.
Further, “[t]he Board’s rules for AIA proceedings ‘shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.’” Trulia, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., CBM2014-00115, Paper 8 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,758) (emphasis added).
Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder raised in the Patent Owner Response, providing the Board with a complete record should it agree to proceed to a Final Written Decision in IPR2017-00415.
As explained in the accompanying motion to waive or suspend the rules, Papst seeks to avoid the speedy and efficient resolution of issues concerning patentability and prolong its lengthy and expensive litigation campaigns concerning the ’449
Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposal removes any potential “complication or delay” in connection with joinder, while providing the parties an opportunity to address all issues that may arise and avoiding any undue burden on Papst and the Board.
cite Cite Document

8 Motion: Motion to Waive or Suspend Rule 37 CFR 42122

Document IPR2018-00410, No. 8 Motion - Motion to Waive or Suspend Rule 37 CFR 42122 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
Movants respectfully request that the Board waive or suspend the customary one-month-from-institution deadline for filing a motion to join an inter partes review to combat the gamesmanship of Papst, the patent owner, and to conserve the scarce resources of the Federal Judiciary currently being expended in two separate district court campaigns.
Terminating IPR2017-00415 would allow Papst to continue its litigation campaign in the MDL case and the Eastern District of Texas against some of the largest camera, mobile phone, and tablet manufacturers in the world.
There is no other reasonable explanation for Olympus, who has fought against Papst’s infringement allegations for over a decade, and whose case is effectively stayed at district court pending a claim construction ruling, to have settled at this stage.
The continued burden on the defendants and the Federal Judiciary in the MDL and Eastern District of Texas litigation (if the motion is denied) is a highly pertinent fact in considering the interests of justice in this case and justifies allowing Movants to step into the shoes of the now settled existing Petitioners in IPR2017-00415.
Movants respectfully submit that it is in the interest of justice, and good cause exists for suspending or waiving the rule requiring that motions for joinder be brought within one month of the date of institution.
cite Cite Document

5 Other Not for motions: Motion for Joinder with IPR2017 00415

Document IPR2018-00410, No. 5 Other Not for motions - Motion for Joinder with IPR2017 00415 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 >>