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

SL Corporation v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.

Docket IPR2016-01368, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 6, 2016)
Michael Tierney, Rama Elluru, Scott Moore, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7241034
Petitioner SL Corporation
Patent Owner Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,241,034

Docket IPR2016-01740, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 7, 2016)
Michael Tierney, Rama Elluru, Scott Moore, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7241034
Petitioner Toyota Motor Company
Patent Owner Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.
Assignee APAPTIVE HEADLAMP SOLUTIONS INC.
cite Cite Docket

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,241,034

Docket IPR2016-00501, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 26, 2016)
Michael Tierney, Rama Elluru, Scott Moore, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7241034
Petitioner Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Patent Owner Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

BMW of North America, LLC v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.

Docket IPR2016-00196, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 16, 2015)
Michael Tierney, Rama Elluru, Scott Moore, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7241034
Patent Owner Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.
Petitioner BMW of North America, LLC
cite Cite Docket

SL Corporation v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.

Docket IPR2016-00193, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 13, 2015)

cite Cite Docket

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.

Docket IPR2016-00079, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Oct. 23, 2015)
Michael Tierney, Rama Elluru, Scott Moore, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7241034
Petitioner Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Patent Owner Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.
Petitioner SL
cite Cite Docket

10 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2016-01368, No. 10 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)
We find on this record that combining Takahashi’s reference values with the Kato’s headlight optical axis control system would result in an obvious “combination of familiar elements according to known methods ... [that] does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Petitioner additionally argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the combination of Kato and Takahashi discussed above, to include a sensor that detects the rate of change of steering angle of a vehicle, and actuators that include servo motors, because such a person would have realized that detecting the rate of change in the steering angle of a vehicle could have been used to reduce time delay in a headlight control system.
We also find on this record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Ishikawa’s gyroscopic sensor with the Kato/Takahashi system discussed above because data indicating the rate of change of vehicle pitch could be used by a controller to rapidly adjust the position of a headlight.
We find on this record that Panter’s system includes a calibration mode in which “a directional orientation at which a beam of light projects is capable of being adjusted relative to the vehicle by manual operation,” as recited in claim 22.
mounted to a bumper described in the “Example” section of the disclosure (see, e.g., Ex. 1012, 2:5–9, 2:12–13, 2:37–3:4), and Mr. Katona does not provide an adequate explanation of why the rate of change of steering angle could not be calculated from a sensor attached to motorcycle handlebars (see Ex. 2002 ¶ 65).
cite Cite Document

9 Refund Approval: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2016-01740, No. 9 Refund Approval - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on 09/07/2016 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $14,000 has been refunded to the Petitioner’s credit card.
Case IPR2016-01740 Patent 7,241,034 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) system, accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
For the PATENT OWNER:
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 17 18 19 >>