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

Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC

Docket IPR2020-01190, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 22, 2020)
John Hudalla, Juliet Mitchell Dirba, Sheila McShane, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent8542113
Patent Owner LBT IP I LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

44 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 44 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)
Whenthe strength of the device’s GPS signal is below a predetermined threshold value—for example, when the de- vice’s access to GPSsatellites is partially or fully blocked— portions of the location tracking circuitry may be deac- tivated to conserve battery power.
In his deposition, for example, Mr. Andrews repeatedly used qualifying language such as “presumably,” “maybe,” and “might” when he explained that although the GPSre- ceiver is deactivated when in the stop-position mode, a skilled artisan would understand Sakamoto turns on com- ponents of the GPSreceiverto cyclically measure the signal level.
The fact that Document: 39 Page:9 Filed: 06/09/2023 LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC. the GPS receiver cannot automatically transition out of stop-position mode in the cycle set in advance embodiment does not render Sakamoto’s device useless becausethe re- ceiver can be turned on manually.
In concluding otherwise, the Board relied on the following passage: “Advantageously as com- pared to conventional tracking devices, user input request 430 adjusts value 419 to select an appropriate update set Document: 39 Page:12 Filed: 06/09/2023 LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC. of network communication signaling protocols to achieve a desired user defined battery operating environment, e.g., obtain optimal battery life, obtain optimal update rate, tradeoffs between them.” Id. at 11:58—67 (emphasis added).
As relevant on appeal, the Board found Apple’s pro- posed combination of Miranda-Knapp and Miller discloses the claim limitation reciting “a battery power monitor con- figured to activate and deactivate at least one portion of signaling circuitry in response to the accelerometer cir- cuitry detecting a substantially stationary position of the electronic tracking device.” ‘619 Decision, at *8—-12.
cite Cite Document

45 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 45 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023)
Document:41 Page:1_ Filed: 07/17/2023 GAnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appellee 2022-1613, 2022-1614, 2022-1615, 2022-1616, 2022-1617 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
In accordance with the judgmentof this Court, entered June 9, 2028, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
July 17, 2023 Date
cite Cite Document

42 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Decision

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 42 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision Judgment Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)
Although the ’905 application explicitly discloses that the primary location circuitry “consumes at least reduced power” in a low power mode (see supra § III.B.5), the parties nonetheless disagree on the interpretation and scope of these ...
cite Cite Document

41 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 41 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2022)
In none of those situations does the GPS receiver reactivates or increase power once it has been turned on to measure the signal.
I will pause here for any questions, and if there are none, then I will -- I will rest.
cite Cite Document

38 Order Other: Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270a

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 38 Order Other - Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270a (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2021)
In instances where an advocate does not meet the LEAP eligibility requirements due to the number of “substantive” oral hearing arguments, but nonetheless has a basis for considering themselves to be in the category of advocates that ...
cite Cite Document

32 Order Other: Order Revised Scheduling Order

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 32 Order Other - Order Revised Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2021)
Introduction On October 12, 2021, Patent Owner filed a revised motion to amend (“revised MTA”) in each of these cases.
Once likely declarants are known, the parties should confer as to dates for scheduling all depositions related to the revised MTAs after the relevant papers will be filed.
As needed, the parties may wish to agree to shortened periods for making objections and serving supplemental evidence prior to a deposition.
In the absence of such an agreement, the parties shall schedule such depositions in advance of a due date for serving supplemental evidence.
Thus, the Board strongly encourages the parties to meet and confer as soon as practicable (including before anticipated declarations are submitted, if possible) to coordinate schedules.
cite Cite Document

28 Notice Other: Notice Other

Document IPR2020-01190, No. 28 Notice Other - Notice Other (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2021)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 >>