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

NHK Seating of America, Inc. v. LEAR CORPORATION

Docket IPR2014-01026, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 23, 2014)
Carl DeFranco, Mitchell Weatherly, Neil Powell, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6655733
Petitioner NHK Seating of America, Inc.
Patent Owner LEAR CORPORATION
Petitioner NHK International
...
cite Cite Docket

32 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 32 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)
It has an impact plate 26 that, when it receives a load from a passenger in a rear- end collision, moves rearward and sort of pivots along that A axis and pushes the headrest, which is marked 22, upwards and forwards.
JUDGE WEATHERLY: I think it is implied, but I just want to make sure that I'm understanding, following this clearly, that actions taken in the '955 file history you believe sort of are appropriate for us to consider as being relevant to claims in all three patents?
So on DX- 29 -- JUDGE WEATHERLY: Help me understand how Dr. Viano could use computer software to model movement of a headrest and provide a graph of a trajectory and then essentially say, well, it doesn't really look like that and put some dotted lines on a paper as what it actually means?
MR. HALAN: It has the effect of reducing the forward velocity as any arcuate curve would result -- JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, I prefer to use the term speed so that we can be clear about the scaler quantity versus a vector.
JUDGE WEATHERLY: So the purveyor of the software that enables the modeling, I guess they should be out of business, or is it because they are patent drawings here that makes them special and unreliable for that purpose, according to the Nystrom case that you are citing?
cite Cite Document

33 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 33 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)
Lear, by altering its selected portions of the Specification, ignores the clearly broader description of first and second manner quoted above as referring to any change in forward velocity or trajectory or both.
We find that the preponderance of the evidence of record developed at trial supports our conclusion that NHK has set forth how the alleged prior art teaches or suggests the uncontested limitations of the reviewed claims.
During such a rear end collision the manoeuvering means 10 is subjected to such a large force backwards relative to the frame 9 by the back of the person that it is moved and, with the help of the link arms 12, guided in such a way that the holders 23
Resp. 10–11 (citing Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that because “patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements” the district court erred in determining invalidity based on “models made from [such] drawings.”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (C.C.P.A.
Because of the uncertainties about the internal structure of support 24, Lear argues that Wiklund fails to describe either explicitly or inherently the required two sequential types of contact between the claimed follower and guide member.
cite Cite Document

27 Notice: Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 27 Notice - Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015)

cite Cite Document

10 Notice: Errata

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 10 Notice - Errata (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)

cite Cite Document

9 Notice: Initial Conferene Summary

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 9 Notice - Initial Conferene Summary (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015)

cite Cite Document

7 Institution Decision: Institution Decision

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 7 Institution Decision - Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2014)

cite Cite Document

8 Notice: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 8 Notice - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2014)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>