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

EMC Corporation v. CLOUDING CORP

Docket IPR2015-01922, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 16, 2015)
Jameson Lee, Michael Kim, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Patent Owner CLOUDING CORP
Petitioner EMC Corporation
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
...
cite Cite Docket

EMC Corporation v. Clouding Corp.

Docket IPR2014-01309, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 16, 2014)
Jameson Lee, Miriam Quinn, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Petitioner EMC Corporation
Patent Owner Clouding Corp.
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
...
cite Cite Docket

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 5,944,839

Docket IPR2013-00304, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 23, 2013)

cite Cite Docket

Oracle Corporation v. Clouding IP, LLC

Docket IPR2013-00095, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 21, 2012)
Jameson Lee, Joni Chang, Michael Kim, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Petitioner Oracle Corporation
Patent Owner Clouding IP, LLC
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
cite Cite Docket

36 Final Decision: Final Written Decision on Remand

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 36 Final Decision - Final Written Decision on Remand (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)
Of relevance to this decision, the Federal Circuit determined that Patent Owner’s only argument to the Board in support of nonobviousness was that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 would not yield a solution that involves “saving a state of a computer system,” as the second half of claim 6, step 5 requires.
In addition, as Petitioner argues, “Barnett explicitly contemplates an embodiment in which the diagnostic system would initially fail to determine a likely solution to a fault, but in which its configuration manager nonetheless remains capable of introducing ‘new component types, which require new models and meta-models.’” Pet.
Dr. Sacerdoti, Petitioner’s expert, states that a skilled artisan “would understand this citation to mean that, absent the encoding of models and meta-models describing the new component types, the diagnostic system would be unable to derive a precise diagnosis.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 18.
Patent Owner concludes that “any combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 would, at best, save case criteria and user-supplied information as a new case and would not save computer state, as required by claim 6.” Id. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s argument and evidence and determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Allen ’664 teaches and Barnett teaches the limitation at issue.
Petitioner’s argument is supported by Dr. Sacerdoti’s testimony, which was formed from his “own extensive experience in managing and teaching the development of rule-based expert systems, and from what [he was] aware was the state of the art at the time of the invention of the ’839 patent.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 32.
cite Cite Document

9 Notice: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2015-01922, No. 9 Notice - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2016)

cite Cite Document

7 Decision Denying Institution: Decision Denial of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2015-01922, No. 7 Decision Denying Institution - Decision Denial of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

cite Cite Document

34 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 34 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 >>