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

CommScope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC

Docket IPR2023-00066, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 1, 2022)
Kevin Trock, Lynne Pettigrew, Robert Weinschenk, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7836381
Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC
Petitioner CommScope, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Nokia Corporation v. TQ Delta, LLC

Docket IPR2022-00665, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 7, 2022)
Ent, Jacqueline Wright Bonilla, Joni Chang, Katherine Vidal, Kevin Trock, Lynne Pettigrew, Robert Weinschenk, Scott Boalick, Trademark Office, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7836381
Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC
Petitioner Nokia Corporation
cite Cite Docket

15 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 Denying Motion for Joinder 35 USC § 315c 37 CFR § 42122

Document IPR2023-00066, No. 15 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 Denying Motion for Joinder 35 USC § 315c 37 CFR § 421...
A. Background and Summary CommScope, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–8 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,836,381 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’381 patent”).
C. Related Matters The parties indicate that the ’381 patent is the subject of the following district court cases: 1) TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01835 (D.
The system may determine a maximum amount of shared memory that can be allocated to an interleaver or a deinterleaver.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), an inter partes review “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
Petitioner does not dispute those facts, but instead relies on its request to join the ’665 IPR to avoid the time limit in Section 315(b).
cite Cite Document

23 Termination Decision Post DI Settlement: Termination Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial

Document IPR2022-00665, No. 23 Termination Decision Post DI Settlement - Termination Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2022)
Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue a single Decision to be filed in each case.
The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
The parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding.
Paper 23 (“Joint Request”).4 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion and Joint Request are granted.
We also determine that it is appropriate to treat the Agreements as business confidential information to be kept separate from the patent file.
cite Cite Document

20 Order Other: Order Denying Request for POP Review

Document IPR2022-00665, No. 20 Order Other - Order Denying Request for POP Review (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2022)
Before KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, SCOTT R. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
The parties are not permitted to use this caption unless authorized by the Board.
The Office received a rehearing request and a request for Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review of an issue raised in each of the above-listed proceedings.
Upon consideration of the requests, it is: ORDERED that the requests for POP review are denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the original panel maintains authority over all matters, including considering the submitted rehearing requests.
2 All citations are to IPR2022-00664 with the understanding that the other proceedings include papers having substantially the same content.
cite Cite Document

19 Order Other: Order Panel Change Order

Document IPR2022-00665, No. 19 Order Other - Order Panel Change Order (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2022)
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, Acting Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
1 This Order addresses a panel change pertaining to the above-referenced proceedings.
The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceedings.
Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Kevin C. Trock replaces Administrative Patent Judge Joni Y. Chang on the panel.
Thus, Administrative Patent Judges Lynne E. Pettigrew, Robert J. Weinschenk and Kevin C. Trock now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in these proceedings.
cite Cite Document

9 Notice Notice filing date accorded: NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION AND TIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE

Document IPR2023-00066, No. 9 Notice Notice filing date accorded - NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION AND TIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE (P.T.A.B. N...
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

6 Notice Other: Notice file date accord

Document IPR2023-00066, No. 6 Notice Other - Notice file date accord (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2022)
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
1 2 3 4 5 ... 17 18 19 >>