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

Apple Inc. v. Taction Technology, Inc.

Docket IPR2022-00057, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Oct. 21, 2021)
Justin Arbes, Scott Howard, Scott Raevsky, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent10659885
Patent Owner Taction Technology, Inc.
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

18 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2022-00057, No. 18 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2022)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on October 21, 2021 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $22,500 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

15 RehearingDecision on Request for Rehearing : DECISION Denying Petitioners Requests on Rehearing of Decisions Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 CFR 4271d

Document IPR2022-00057, No. 15 RehearingDecision on Request for Rehearing - DECISION Denying Petitioners Requests on Rehearing of Decisions Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 CFR 427...
An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors.
Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.
DuPont’s3 burden shifting presumption to determine that Petitioner did not sufficiently show that the prior art taught a limitation recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, we determined that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of prior art.
DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” Pet. 44; see also id. at 79 (“Indeed, the Federal Circuit has found that an overlap in ranges creates a presumption of obviousness.
cite Cite Document

13 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Deny

Document IPR2022-00057, No. 13 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Deny (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2022)
A. Legal Standards In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court set out a framework for assessing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 that requires consideration of four factors: (1) the “level of
“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 407 (2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “it is error to reach a conclusion of obviousness until all those factors are considered,” WBIP v. Kohler, 829 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2016).7 B.
“Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would have (i) a Bachelor’s degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering or mechanical engineering or a similar technical field; (ii) a working knowledge of computing devices and their associated hardware (including input/output devices) and software; and (iii) two to four years of experience designing and developing haptic interfaces and the associated technologies, including various damping techniques.
“A more specific application of this general principle is that ‘[a] prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges’” recited in a claim “overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.’” Id. (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
10 As explained above, given our determination that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the cited references teach or suggest the critical, claimed range of 40–200 Hz, we need not address Patent Owner’s other arguments, including, for example, that the frequency response of Kajiwara’s deformable members does not apply to ferrofluid or a device like the one described in Miyazaki.
cite Cite Document

4 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice Notice filing date accorded

Document IPR2022-00057, No. 4 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice Notice filing date accorded (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)
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.
Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual property field, offer alternative dispute resolution services.
If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.
cite Cite Document

12 Other Not for motions: Petitioners Updated Mandatory Notice to Update Counsel of Record

Document IPR2022-00057, No. 12 Other Not for motions - Petitioners Updated Mandatory Notice to Update Counsel of Record (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2022)
IIPR2022-00057 Updated Mandatory Notice U.S. Patent 10,659,885 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), Petitioner, Apple Inc., hereby provides
notice in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) that counsel has been updated, as reflected below.
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) – SERVICE INFORMATION Please address all correspondence to the lead and back-up counsel as shown above.
Petitioner consents to electronic service by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided above.
Respectfully submitted,
cite Cite Document

17 Refund Request: Petitioner���s Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees

Document IPR2022-00057, No. 17 Refund Request - Petitioner���s Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2022)
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of nineteen (19) claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,885 B2 on October 21, 2021 (Paper No. 1).
At the time of filing, Petitioner submitted a fee of $41,500.00, consisting of a $19,000.00 inter partes review request fee and a $22,500.00 inter partes review post-institution fee, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a).
On April 18, 2022, the Board denied institution of the inter partes review (Paper No. 11) and on July 7, 2022, the Board denied Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 15).
In view of the Board’s decision, Petitioner respectfully requests a refund of the inter partes review post-institution fee of $22,500.00 that was submitted with its initial petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b).
Petitioner requests that the refund be deposited in Deposit Account No. 50-6159.
cite Cite Document

16 Notice: Petitioners Updated Mandatory Notice

Document IPR2022-00057, No. 16 Notice - Petitioners Updated Mandatory Notice (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2022)
IIPR2022-00057 Updated Mandatory Notice U.S. Patent 10,659,885 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), Petitioner, Apple Inc., hereby provides
notice in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) that counsel has been updated as reflected below to remove Kelly R. Hughes as Back-Up Counsel.
5299 DTC Blvd., Ste.
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) – SERVICE INFORMATION Please address all correspondence to the lead and back-up counsel as shown above.
Petitioner consents to electronic service by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided above.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 12 >>