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

Unified Patents, LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2021-00917, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 14, 2021)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, Kristi Sawert, Scott Raevsky, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC
cite Cite Docket

32 Order Other: Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR § 425

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 32 Order Other - Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR § 425 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2022)
a. BACKGROUND FACTS The Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (“the ’431 patent”) in the present case was filed on March 14, 2021.
Patent Owner argued that the identity of Petitioner’s members was material to the analysis of whether or not to institute the present inter partes review.
Thus, Patent Owner chose to exclude real party-in- interest and privity as issues to be addressed during the trial phase of the present proceeding.
Even if we were to go back to October, when Patent Owner first made its request, at that time all briefs from the parties had been submitted and the oral hearing had been conducted.
Patent Owner reasons that the Board can order Petitioner to provide discovery regarding its relationship with Samsung.
cite Cite Document

31 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Strike 35 USC § 318a

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 31 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable Denying Petitioner’s Motion...
Patent Owner does not address this term in its claim construction section (PO Resp. 6–11), but later argues that a “more accurate function is ‘analyzing the image obtained by the camera means to determine information concerning a position or movement of an object’” (id. at 33).
Patent 7,933,431 B2 image using reflected light of at least one object, as the structure corresponding to the camera means limitation includes at least electro- optical sensors, such as those disclosed in Numazaki.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–150).
We further determine that Petitioner’s argument and evidence shows what one of skill would understand that Numazaki teaches that the feature data generation unit is implemented in a general purpose computer.
Cousins is directed to “a multi-purpose portable imaging device” where “[t]he device is small enough to be hand-held ... and has embedded on its surface at least one sensor.” Cousins’ system further involves sending the “energy received from the sensors ... to an advanced computer” where “[t]he data is processed.” Ex. 1006, Abst.
Petitioner first argues that Cousins provides an explicit motivation to combine because “Cousins states that its imaging device can be used with hand gestures for input to a computer,” which is the focus of Doi.
cite Cite Document

30 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 30 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2022)
If at any time during the proceeding you encounter technical or other difficulties that you feel fundamentally undermines your ability to adequately represent your client, please let us know immediately, for example, by contacting the team members who provided you with connection information.
For example, Magnum Oil Tools says, A patentee bears the burden of establishing that its claimed invention is entitled to an earlier priority date than an asserted prior art reference.
So, in the case of attempted antedating, the burden of production is on the Patent Owner to show with evidence and argument that the earlier document provides written description and an enabling disclosure of the claimed subject matter.
The Board should be suspect of any argument by this Petitioner that Dr. Pryor did not conceive of the claimed invention before the effective date of Rhoads and -- or that he did not exercise reasonably continuous diligence over only ten days through constructive reduction of practice.
Patent Owner's counsel also indicated that our expert's testimony was conclusory on this point, but I believe if Your Honors will refer to Exhibit 1034, which is our Reply Declaration, Mr. Schmandt went into quite a bit of detail about why component-level structure was appropriate for this limitation, and that's consistent with his other arguments as well.
cite Cite Document

26 Order Other: Order Panel Change Order

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 26 Order Other - Order Panel Change Order (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2022)
Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Acting Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceeding.
Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Scott Raevsky replaces Administrative Patent Judge Joni Y. Chang on the panel.
Thus, Administrative Patent Judges Kevin F. Turner, Brent M. Dougal, and Scott Raevsky now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in this proceeding.
All prior decisions and orders remain in effect.
cite Cite Document

22 Order Other: Order Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR 4270

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 22 Order Other - Order Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR 4270 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2022)
The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearings, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearings.1 Each party will have 60 minutes of argument time.
Either party may request that a qualifying LEAP practitioner participate in the program and conduct at least a portion of the party’s oral argument.
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
During the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 9 AM Mountain Time on August 30, 2022, by Video, and proceed in the manner set forth herein.
cite Cite Document

15 Order Other: Panel Change Order

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 15 Order Other - Panel Change Order (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2022)
Conduct of the Proceeding
The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceeding.
Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Kevin F. Turner replaces Administrative Patent Judge Kristi L. R. Sawert on the panel.
Thus, Administrative Patent Judges Kevin F. Turner, Joni Y. Chang, and Brent M. Dougal now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in this proceeding.
All prior decisions and orders remain in effect.
cite Cite Document

12 Other other: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2021-00917, No. 12 Other other - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2021)
For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
To satisfy this requirement, Patent Owner should request a conference call with the Board no later than two weeks prior to DUE DATE 1.
Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if requested, will be held at the Denver, Colorado, USPTO Regional Office.
The Board defines a LEAP practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal, including PTAB.
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11 >>