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

LG Electronics Inc. v. ImmverVision, Inc.

Docket IPR2020-00179, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 27, 2019)
Kimberly McGraw, Kristina Kalan, Wesley Derrick, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6844990
Patent Owner ImmverVision, Inc.
Petitioner LG Electronics Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

LG Electronics Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc.

Docket IPR2020-00195, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 27, 2019)
Kimberly McGraw, Kristina Kalan, Wesley Derrick, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6844990
Patent Owner ImmerVision, Inc.
Petitioner LG Electronics Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

30 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2020-00179, No. 30 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2023)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered July 11, 2022, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

31 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2020-00179, No. 31 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2023)
Also represented by DENNIS JAMES BUTLER; KEITH AARON JONES, STEPHEN EMERSON MURRAY, Philadelphia, PA. LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION, INC. Before NEWMAN, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
In its patent owner response, ImmerVision, relying on Mr. Aikens’ declaration, argued that Tada’s Table 5 includes a readily apparent er- ror that cannot form the basis of any obviousness ground.
Having established that the image was severely dis- torted, Mr. Aikens began comparing other aspects of his lens model with the “diagrams of the aberrations, astigma- tism, and distortion” provided in Tada for its third LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION, INC. embodiment using “standard output features” of optical de- sign code.
Over fifty years ago, our predecessor court reversed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences4 affirming the rejection of certain claims directed to a specific compound of inhala- tion anesthetic—CF3CF2CHClBr—as obvious.
Moreover, we view Yale’s standard as sound law, ensuring that an obviously errant disclosure of a typographical or similar nature would not LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION, INC. prevent a true inventor of the claimed subject matter from later obtaining patent protection.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

28 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2020-00179, No. 28 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2022)
The ’990 patent purports to improve theresolution of particular sectors of a digital panoramic image “without the need to increase the numberof pixels per unit of area of an imagesensoror to provide an overlookingoptical en- largement system.” Jd.
In its patent owner response, ImmerVision,relying on Mr. Aikens’ declaration, argued that Tada’s Table 5 includes a readily apparent er- ror that cannot form the basis of any obviousness ground.
Next, Mr. Aikens reviewed the imageplanefor his lens model to evaluate the magnitude of the error and discovered that the output image wasdistorted with “precisely the kind of uncorrected field curvature that Tada wasexplicitly trying to prevent.” J.A.
Overfifty years ago, our predecessorcourt reversed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences‘ affirming the rejection of certain claims directed to a specific compoundof inhala- tion anesthetic—CF3CF2CHC]Br—as obvious.
Considering all the evidence before it, the Board rea- sonably found that Tada’s Table 5 includes an obviouserror of a typographical or similar nature that would have been apparent to oneof ordinaryskill in the art, who would have Document: 37 Page:17 Filed: 07/11/2022 LG ELECTRONICSINC.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

28 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2020-00195, No. 28 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2022)
The ’990 patent purports to improve theresolution of particular sectors of a digital panoramic image “without the need to increase the numberof pixels per unit of area of an imagesensoror to provide an overlookingoptical en- largement system.” Jd.
In its patent owner response, ImmerVision,relying on Mr. Aikens’ declaration, argued that Tada’s Table 5 includes a readily apparent er- ror that cannot form the basis of any obviousness ground.
Next, Mr. Aikens reviewed the imageplanefor his lens model to evaluate the magnitude of the error and discovered that the output image wasdistorted with “precisely the kind of uncorrected field curvature that Tada wasexplicitly trying to prevent.” J.A.
Overfifty years ago, our predecessorcourt reversed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences‘ affirming the rejection of certain claims directed to a specific compoundof inhala- tion anesthetic—CF3CF2CHC]Br—as obvious.
Considering all the evidence before it, the Board rea- sonably found that Tada’s Table 5 includes an obviouserror of a typographical or similar nature that would have been apparent to oneof ordinaryskill in the art, who would have Document: 37 Page:17 Filed: 07/11/2022 LG ELECTRONICSINC.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

26 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2020-00179, No. 26 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2021)
Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner failed to “explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have modified [the lens system according to the correct prescription] to include a compressed edge zone.” Id. at 40 (emphasis omitted).
Reply 5–6 (citing Elsner, 381 F.3d at 1128)) fails because, as discussed above, the issue is not whether the prior art disclosure is enabled, but rather whether it would be recognized as an obvious error and simply disregarded (see Yale, 434 F.2d at 669).
Similarly, we give little weight to Dr. Chipman’s testimony that the error would not have been readily apparent because Table 5 enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a complete lens because it is grounded on an incorrect understanding of the law.
Petitioner supports this contention with the testimony of Dr. Chipman (id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 5–8)), including that “the purported error that Mr. Aikens alleges is not obvious on its face and detectable with little effort” that relies on the reasoning that “Mr.
Petitioner makes its reliance on Tada for this feature clear in stating that “[t]he fact that Nagaoka teaches two zones (compression and expansion) ... is immaterial for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] looking for guidance on possible maximum divergence for lenses for CCTV cameras.” Id.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

26 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2020-00195, No. 26 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2021)
Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner failed to “explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have modified [the lens system according to the correct prescription] to include a compressed edge zone.” Id. at 40 (emphasis omitted).
Patent 6,844,990 B2 in Table 5 itself would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to believe there was an error, but the circumstances here appear to be essentially the same as in Yale, where the court relied on an inconsistency between different portions of the disclosure.
Similarly, we give little weight to Dr. Chipman’s testimony that the error would not have been readily apparent because Table 5 enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a complete lens because it is grounded on an incorrect understanding of the law.
Petitioner supports this contention with the testimony of Dr. Chipman (id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 5–8)), including that “the purported error that Mr. Aikens alleges is not obvious on its face and detectable with little effort” that relies on the reasoning that “Mr.
Petitioner makes its reliance on Tada for this feature clear in stating that “[t]he fact that Nagaoka teaches two zones (compression and expansion) ... is immaterial for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] looking for guidance on possible maximum divergence for lenses for CCTV cameras.” Id.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 15 16 17 >>