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

Kinglite Holdings Inc v. Micro-Star International Co Ltd et al

Docket 2:15-cv-09612, California Central District Court (Dec. 14, 2015)
Judge James V. Selna, presiding, Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh
Patent
DivisionLos Angeles (Western Division)
DemandPlaintiff
Cause15:1126 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
5732268; 5836013; 5978912; 5987604; 6222562; 6263412; 6308265; 6401202; 6487656; 6502184; 6519659; 6633976; 6791572; 6892304; 7185189; 8095783
5732268583601359789125987604622256262634126308265640120264876566502184
6519659
66339766791572689230471851898095783
Plaintiff Kinglite Holdings Inc
Defendant Micro-Star International Co Ltd
Defendant MSI Computer Corp.
...
cite Cite Docket

American Megatrends, Inc. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.

Docket IPR2015-01140, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 6, 2015)
Barbara Parvis, Brian McNamara, Glenn Perry, J. John Lee, Phillip Kauffman, Trevor Jefferson, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6519659
Petitioner American Megatrends, Inc.
Patent Owner Kinglite Holdings Inc.
Assignee AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC.
...
cite Cite Docket

34 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 34 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016)
Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Nazarian, relies on the initial loading of the operating system and placement of the bootstrap loader on a storage device to support the conclusion that Madden discloses no actions that occur prior to the booting of the OS.
Based on the complete record, Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence and argument that Christeson includes a storage element containing a copy of the CMOS data.
Petitioner provides argument, claim charts, and citations to the Righi Declaration in support of its contentions that Madden and Bizzarri teach the limitations regarding the application program and
Petitioner provides adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning for the combination of the method disclosed in Noll for the recovery of damaged BIOS with the storage element in Moran, namely to improve the reliability of the system.
Based on the full record, we find that Petitioner has provided convincing evidence and analysis that the combination of Noll and Moran teach the limitations of dependent claims 6 and 13.
cite Cite Document

33 Hearing Transcript: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 33 Hearing Transcript - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)
And that's really the essence of the claim is this notion of writing contents from memory to a storage device before an operating system is active, because in that case the resources are limited.
JUDGE LEE: Mr. Summerfield, just to make sure I understand you, so your position is that the claim requires Case IPR2015-01140 Patent 6,519,659 that the writing be independent of any and all post-boot application programs.
If the RAM has instruction sequences on it and it has a storage element on it, namely the backup BIOS being Case IPR2015-01140 Patent 6,519,659 transferred, yes, it came from somewhere else originally, but why does that matter with respect to the claim?
Finally, with Christeson we heard -- JUDGE LEE: Before you move on from Noll, Mr. Ganti, does the secondary BIOS ROM contain instruction sequences as that term is used in the claims of the '659 patent?
When a CMOS RAM device fails it is because the battery can run out, but it is still characterized as non- volatile storage, and for that reason it does persistently store data for its intended purpose.
cite Cite Document

32 Order Conduct of Proceeding: ORDER Conduct of the Proceedings Oral Argument

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 32 Order Conduct of Proceeding - ORDER Conduct of the Proceedings Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)
American Megatrends, Inc., Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., MSI Computer Corp., Giga-Byte Technology, Co., Ltd., and G.B.T., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) has requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70.
Therefore, at oral hearing Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with regard to the challenged claims on which basis we instituted trial.
Specifically, the hearing will commence at 1:00 PM on August 9, 2016 on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
Any issue regarding demonstrative exhibits should be resolved at least three days prior to the hearing by way of a joint telephone conference call to the Board.
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 hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
cite Cite Document

30 Order: Order 37 CFR 425

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 30 Order - Order 37 CFR 425 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
Patent Owner requests an extension of time to oppose Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude one or more deposition transcripts filed IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, and IPR2015-01191.
We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be docketed in each case.
So that we may consider the parties’ arguments in full, and in view of the circumstances of these related cases, we authorize Patent Owner to file an Opposition in each of IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, and IPR2015-01191 on or before close of business July 27, 2016.
Both parties may include in their papers contentions regarding Patent Owner’s late filing and recommended action, if any.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude one or more deposition transcripts in each of IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, and IPR2015-01191 no later than close of business July 27, 2016; and FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition in each of IPR2015-01094, IPR2015-01133, IPR2015-01140, and IPR2015-01191 no later than close of business July 29, 2016.
cite Cite Document

26 Order: Order Granting Patent Owners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Christopher H St Peter

Document IPR2015-01140, No. 26 Order - Order Granting Patent Owners Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Christopher H St Peter (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)
Kinglite Holding, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) moves for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Christopher H. St. Peter in accordance with 37 CFR 42.10 in each of the identified proceedings.
In authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board also requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding.
Christopher H. St. Peter provides uncontroverted testimony that he: is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State
Counsel for Patent Owner in each proceeding, who is registered to practice at the USPTO, has provided a statement of facts that Mr. St. Peter is an experienced litigator, has reviewed the patents at issue and the prior art, and is familiar with the subject matter of the proceedings.
Thus, Patent Owner has shown good cause why Christopher H. St. Peter should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding.
cite Cite Document

No. 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-16939573 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Kinglite Holdings Inc

Document Kinglite Holdings Inc v. Micro-Star International Co Ltd et al, 2:15-cv-09612, No. 1 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 14, 2015)
Complaint
Defendants import, offer for sale, and/or sell MSI Z170A XPower Gaming Titanium Edition motherboards equipped with Intel Z170 chipset and loaded with American Megatrends, Inc. (“AMI”) UEFI T.ON BIOS (dated august 4, 2015) that practice the inventions of the patents in-suit (“Accused Products”).
The board of directors includes representatives from eleven “Promoter” companies: AMD, American Megatrends, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde Software, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, and Phoenix Technologies.
Defendants’ importation, sale and/or offer to sell the Accused Products constitute direct infringement of claim 6 of the ‘268 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), insofar as the Accused Products have a first code portion in the UEFI BIOS loaded thereon to initiate POST and boot operations, and a second code portion to communicate with a separate computer in the event that there is a failure to complete boot operations.
Defendants’ importation, sale and/or offer to sell the Accused Products loaded with the AMI compatibility support module (“CSM”) constitute direct infringement of claims 11 and 20 of the ‘783 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) insofar as the CSM allows the processor to boot in Legacy or UEFI mode.
Users directly infringe claims 1 and 11 of the ‘604 Patent through operation of the Accused Products for which the paging feature in system management mode has been activated.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 >>