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

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Docket IPR2025-00502, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 17, 2025)
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9667669
Petitioner Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.

Docket IPR2022-00557, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 10, 2022)
Kevin Turner, Robert Weinschenk, Russell Cass, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9667669
Patent Owner Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Petitioner Ericsson Inc.
cite Cite Docket

36 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2022-00557, No. 36 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2024)
Anited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appellee 2024-1240 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022- 00557.
The parties having so agreed,it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.
Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court January 17, 2024 Date ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 17, 2024
cite Cite Document

34 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2022-00557, No. 34 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2023)
Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.
Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to include Wright’s ability to terminate unwanted media sessions using a SIP BYE message in Foti’s system to complement Foti’s disclosed processes, and as this would have been an expected functionality of an IPTV service.
Lastly, Petitioner asserts that person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to follow the teachings of Lloyd to modify Foti to support the known technique of adaptive video frame rate media streams to achieve better perceived quality of service from AS 40 and to be able to accommodate changes in network transmission capacity and to meet “the challenge of consistent provision of QoS.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85).
Patent Owner additionally argues that Petitioner’s declarant is unhelpful in testifying that “in response to a SIP BYE command from UT 20, AS 40 could cause MCS 30 to terminate the sessions using an RTSP TEARDOWN message as taught by RFC 2326,” because “could” is not the test for obviousness.
We agree with Patent Owner that its showing strengthens its case that there is nexus between the Change Request and independent claims 1 and 21, thus supplying industry praise, countering a determination of obviousness.
cite Cite Document

31 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2022-00557, No. 31 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2023)
And that's -- Foti discloses that the SIP session ID along with the information necessary to populate that table is sent back to the UE so he can keep a local copy of that and he can also keep track of the associated media streams.
This is paragraph 38 of Foti, and I think the board has recognized in the preliminary guidance on the motion to amend that this might language discloses the possibility that you might still use the old SIP session ID.
And Patent Owner's argument, it doesn't address Petitioner's -- JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Ms. Muenks, is that a problem for some reason that they only raised it with respect to the motion to amend?
MS. MUENKS: So Patent Owner's argument is that a POSITA would not have been motivated to allegedly alter the standard with Foti by reusing the SIP ID, but this does not address Petitioner's combination, which goes
Petitioner also alleged in the petition that a POSITA would have expected to reference the SIP, SDP, and RTSP protocols when implementing Foti to have standard compliant interoperable devices.
cite Cite Document

28 Order on Motion: ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR sec 4270

Document IPR2022-00557, No. 28 Order on Motion - ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR sec 4270 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2023)

cite Cite Document

21 Notice Other: Notice Preliminary Guidance Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend

Document IPR2022-00557, No. 21 Notice Other - Notice Preliminary Guidance Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2023)

cite Cite Document

1 Petition as filed: Petition as filed

Document IPR2025-00502, No. 1 Petition as filed - Petition as filed (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2025)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 >>