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

Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Papst Licensing GmgH & Co. KG

Docket IPR2017-00448, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 8, 2016)
Jennifer Bisk, Joni Chang, Miriam Quinn, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6895449
Petitioner Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmgH & Co. KG
Petitioner Zte
...
cite Cite Docket

9 Refund Approval: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2017-00448, No. 9 Refund Approval - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on December 8, 2016, 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

7 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2017-00448, No. 7 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2017)
Patent Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art is at least partially consistent with Patent Owner’s view, but nonetheless contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have “a bachelor’s degree in a related field such as computer engineering or electrical engineering and at least three years of experience in the design, development, and/or testing of hardware and software components involved with data transfer or in embedded devices and their interfaces with host systems.” Prelim. Resp. 5–7.
For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not established sufficiently that the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the German Priority Application’s filing date.
According to Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, because it does not disclose “SCSI-specific drivers,” the German Priority Application “does not covey to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention of at least the ‘inquiry from the host device as to the type of a Case IPR2017000448 Patent 6,895,449 B2
Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the German Priority Application lacks adequate written description support for a “multi-purpose interface” of a host device.
As our reviewing court has articulated, the written description “test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
cite Cite Document

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

Document IPR2017-00448, No. 5 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017)
The petition for inter partes review in the above proceeding has been accorded the filing date of December 8, 2016.
For more information, please consult the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.
The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause.
Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under “Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” 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 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

8 Refund Request: Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees

Document IPR2017-00448, No. 8 Refund Request - Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)
On December 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of US.
(“Petition,” Paper No. 1), seeking inter partes review of claims 1-10, 12, 13 and 15-18 of the ’449 patent.
On May 17, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued its Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 7).
Payment of the $14,400 Post-Institution Fees was processed through PTAB E213 on December 8, 2016, and charged to the undersigned’s Deposit Account, No. 50-0740 (Covington & Burling LLP).
Date: September 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted, - Registration No.: 42,488 David A. Garr Registration No.: 74,932 One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Attorneys for Petitioner Page 1
cite Cite Document

1 Petition: Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No 6895449

Document IPR2017-00448, No. 1 Petition - Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No 6895449 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016)
Litig., No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2014) Rufus P. Turner et al., The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics (1991) Friedhelm Schmidt, The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface (1995) Dave Williams, The Programmer’s Technical Reference: MS- DOS, IBM PC & Compatibles (1990) Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
In order to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the German priority application must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563- 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As discussed in Section VII.A.2 (claim 1, limitation [1f]), the combination of Murata, Ard, and MS-DOS Encyclopedia discloses an interface device arranged for simulating a virtual file system that includes a directory structure.
As discussed in Section VII.A.2 (claim 1[f]), the combination of Murata, Ard and MS-DOS Encyclopedia discloses an interface device which is arranged for simulating a virtual files system to the host and contains a directory structure.
Beretta discloses, and a POSITA would have readily understood the desirability of implementing an image compression engine in software as an executable file, which would have been a routine design choice that would not have required undue experimentation.
cite Cite Document

6 Preliminary Response: Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH Co, KGs Preliminary Response

Document IPR2017-00448, No. 6 Preliminary Response - Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH Co, KGs Preliminary Response (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2017)
Litig., No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2014) Rufus P. Turner et al., The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics (1991) Friedhelm Schmidt, The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface (1995) Dave Williams, The Programmer’s Technical Reference: MSDOS, IBM PC & Compatibles (1990)
The ‘449 Patent recognizes that the existing options were wasteful and inefficient and presents a solution that would achieve high data transfer rates, without specialized software, while being sufficiently flexible to operate independent of device or host manufacturers.
Petitioners assert that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘449 Patent at the time of the alleged invention (‘POSITA’) would have a four-year degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or related field of study.” Paper 1 (Petition) at 7.
The Petitioner has an obligation to advance its most salient grounds in one petition or to explain in detail why that cannot be accomplished due to the relative strengths and weaknesses of particular prior art applied to particular claims that need to be addressed in multiple grounds/petitions.
In TRW, the Board determined that “TRW does not support its ‘simple substitution’ or ‘obvious to try’ rationales with explanation or evidence.” Id. “TRW does not explain, for instance, why the alleged combination would be a ‘simple’ substitution achieving ‘predictable results,’ or why selecting Bottesch’s array, as opposed to any other, would be a choice from a ‘finite number’ of solutions with a ‘reasonable expectation of success.’” Id.
cite Cite Document

4 Mandatory Notice: Mandatory Notices of Patent Owner and Related Matters

Document IPR2017-00448, No. 4 Mandatory Notice - Mandatory Notices of Patent Owner and Related Matters (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG submits the following Mandatory Notices in response to the Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449.
Real Party-In-Interest: The Patent Owner below is the real party-in-interest: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG Bahnofstrasse 33 78112 St. Georgen Germany Related Matters: The Patent Owner is aware of the following administrative
Service Information: Counsel for Patent Owner may be served
electronically by email, or by certified mail, courier, or hand at the address listed above.
Gregory S. Donahue Reg. No. 47,531 DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP 7000 North MoPac Expressway Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78731 Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 >>