• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
249 results

Wargaming Group Limited v. GAT

Docket IPR2017-01082, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 13, 2017)
Barbara Benoit, Daniel Galligan, Scott Howard, Stacey White, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7682243
Patent Owner GAT
Petitioner Wargaming Group Limited
Petitioner Activision Blizzard
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

65 Termination Decision Document: FINAL WRITTEN DECISION35 USC § 318a

Document IPR2017-01082, No. 65 Termination Decision Document - FINAL WRITTEN DECISION35 USC § 318a (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)
Petitioner, in its reply to the Preliminary Response, “denies that Wargaming.net LLP was served in the manner described by Mr. Talbot,” and it submits a declaration of Mr. Costas A. Joannou (Ex. 1017), the individual upon whom Patent Owner alleges service of the complaint was made.
The Federal Circuit, however, has also stated that “the PTO is under no obligation to accept a claim construction proffered as a prosecution history disclaimer, which generally only binds the patent owner.” Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, implementing the teachings of D&D Handbook in an online game platform as taught by Levine would result in the familiar being “a virtual object controlled by the player.” See PO Resp. 13 (“With the advent of computing, the tabletop world of D&D naturally morphed into electronic form.”).
Patent Owner argues that changing the ratio by which the familiar’s hit points increase “would be outside the rules of the game” and “would have materially altered the well-defined and long standing role of the Sorcerer (or Wizard) and its familiar in a way that is entirely inconsistent with the venerable context of D&D and the RPG genre.” PO Resp. 69 (citing Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 174–175).
For a teaching of the claimed “sync point” ratios, Petitioner cites the following disclosure in the MOO Strategy Guide: Fighter Ace Increases beam weapon damage and Ship Defense for every vessel in the assigned ship’s fleet by 5 percent per experience level.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

64 Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript

Document IPR2017-01082, No. 64 Hearing Transcript - Hearing Transcript (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)
So is it -- I understood petitioner's position to be that even Case IPR2017-01082 Patent 7,682,243 B2 just service by mail was defective because it didn't follow -- it wasn't addressed by the Clerk of the Court, and it didn't involve FRCP(4)(F)(2)(c)(ii) I think it was.
So if we turn to slide 14, I think that's a good example of that, where we see that the patent owner, when it comes to the terms "pilot" and "unit," was referring to looking at Mazinger Z video game or arcade style game to -- as a support for why a particular construction should be adopted, whereas for "ability," patent owner is asking you to look at the Dungeons & Dragons reference for how "ability" is stated in Dungeons & Dragons.
So I agree that there's a struggle on what is the term to use beyond ability itself for a characteristic versus an attribute, but I think it is clear that we have within the scope of the claims, certainly the Dungeons & Dragons reference meets that for hit points.
Because petitioner directed us to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(F)(C) -- (F)(2)(c)(ii), it says that you have to use a form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends that Case IPR2017-01082 Patent 7,682,243 B2 requires a signed receipt.
And at the very least -- JUDGE GALLIGAN: As I mentioned, as I alluded to, when petitioner was presenting, an attribute may be too broad because as Patent Owner pointed out, it includes hair color, things like that.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

58 Order: ORDER Amending Oral Hearing Order 37 CFR § 4270

Document IPR2017-01082, No. 58 Order - ORDER Amending Oral Hearing Order 37 CFR § 4270 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)
Before STACEY G. WHITE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
On June 15, 2018, we issued a Trial Hearing Order setting the oral hearing for July 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM Central Time at the Texas Regional Office of the USPTO in Dallas, Texas.
Paper 57, 2; see also Paper 16, 7 (“The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for [July 11, 2018] and will take place at the Texas Regional Office of the USPTO, 207 South Houston St., Suite 159, Dallas, Texas 75202.”).
On June 15, 2018, following entry of the Trial Hearing Order, Patent Owner’s lead counsel emailed the Board stating that he anticipated the hearing would be set for Alexandria, Virginia, and that he could not be present in person in Dallas at that time due to previous commitments.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the hearing in this matter is set for July 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM Central Time at the Texas Regional Office of the USPTO.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

57 Order: Trial Hearing37 CFR sec 4270

Document IPR2017-01082, No. 57 Order - Trial Hearing37 CFR sec 4270 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2018)
Based on our review of the record, we determine that two hours of oral argument time, in total, is sufficient to address the issues.
We note that a District Court’s Order construing several terms of the patent at issue has been made of record in this proceeding.
If the parties have any concern about disclosing confidential information, they are to contact the Board at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case No. IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the
cite Cite Document
Analyze

54 Order: ORDER Granting Joint Motion to Limit Briefing and Evidence

Document IPR2017-01082, No. 54 Order - ORDER Granting Joint Motion to Limit Briefing and Evidence (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)
Before STACEY G. WHITE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
A conference call was held with the parties on May 16, 2018, to discuss the parties’ proposed approach to proceed with the case.
Subsequently, via email, we authorized the parties to file a Joint Motion to Limit Briefing and Evidence as to Ground 2 of the Petition, which is the subject of this Order.
The parties further state: Given the late stage of the proceeding and considering the extensive briefing and discovery that has been completed, limiting the briefing and evidence for Ground 2 at this juncture promotes the efficient use of the Board’s resources and saves additional expense for the parties.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that parties’ joint motion to limit the briefing and evidence for Ground 2 to the briefing and evidence that was submitted prior to the Board’s October 6, 2017 institution decision is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that we do not deem the parties to have conceded patentability or unpatentability based on Ground 2 or to have waived any arguments based on that ground of unpatentability.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

46 Order: IPR2018 00157 Granting Joinder Dismissing Petition for Inter Partes Rev...

Document IPR2017-01082, No. 46 Order - IPR2018 00157 Granting Joinder Dismissing Petition for Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

47 Order Conduct of Proceeding: Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2017-01082, No. 47 Order Conduct of Proceeding - Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 16 17 18 >>