• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 9-23 of 114 results

28 Final Decision: EXPUNGED

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 28 Final Decision - EXPUNGED (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2015)
BLANK BLANK
cite Cite Document

29 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 29 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2015)
After institution, Patent Owner argued that this inter partes review turns on a single claim construction issue—whether the recited limitation “requires that, in each communication cycle, there be at least one interval in which a remote transmits frames to the hub, or whether there need only be an ‘opportunity’ for such transmission.” PO Resp. 1 (emphasis omitted).
Patent 5,371,734 Next, Natarajan 1992’s hub (Access Point) defines and transmits the start time and duration of a communication cycle (frame) before the transmission opportunities for the remotes (mobile stations) begin.
Because the Access Point transmits the start time and duration of the frame and all relevant intervals—Periods A, B, and C; Headers AH, BH, and CH; and the individual slots in Period B— before the transmission opportunities for the mobile stations begin, Natarajan 1992 discloses the “transmitting” limitation as construed by the Federal Circuit.
Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references.
Nevertheless, Petitioner contends, with support from Dr. Haas, that carrying voice and other isochronous traffic would have been desirable in the relevant timeframe, so that it would have been obvious to add the capability to Natarajan ’542 by using booking packets as taught by Bella, combined with Bella’s method for cancelling, or revoking, the reservation.
cite Cite Document

26 Notice: Order Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 26 Notice - Order Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2015)
Patent 5,371,734 On November 2, 2015, we authorized each party to submit additional briefing on the impact on this proceeding of two opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734, the patent at issue in this inter partes review: Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 2015-1071, 2015 WL 6550622 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 29, 2015), and Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 2015-1190, 2015 WL 6516819 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 29, 2015).
Petitioner, St. Jude Medical Inc., and Patent Owner, Atlas IP, LLC, each filed a brief.
By its own admission, Patent Owner raises in its brief an issue based on the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “transmitting” limitation of the challenged claims that it has not raised previously in this proceeding.
In order to give Petitioner an opportunity to respond to this new argument, we authorize Petitioner to submit a responsive brief addressing the issue raised in Paper 25 filed by Patent Owner.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before November 13, 2015, Petitioner is authorized to file a brief of no more than 5 pages addressing the argument raised by Patent Owner in Paper 25; and FURTHER ORDERED that no further briefs may be submitted by either party.
cite Cite Document

23 Order: Order Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 23 Order - Order Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2015)
On October 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided two appeals from decisions in district court cases involving U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 (Ex. 1001, “the ’734 patent”), the patent at issue in this inter partes review.
Also on October 29, 2015, the Board received an email from Petitioner, St. Jude Medical, Inc., requesting authorization to file copies of the two Federal Circuit opinions in PRPS.
The Board then received an email from Patent Owner, Atlas IP, LLC, requesting a telephone conference to discuss the importance of the Medtronic Federal Circuit opinion in this proceeding.
In response to the parties’ requests, we authorize each party to submit additional briefing on the impact of the Medtronic and St. Jude Federal Circuit opinions on this proceeding.
ORDERED that on or before November 9, 2015, each party is authorized to file a brief of no more than 5 pages addressing the impact of Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 2015-1071, 2015 WL 6550622 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 29, 2015), and Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 2015- 1190, 2015 WL 6516819 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 29, 2015), on this proceeding.
cite Cite Document

22 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 22 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2015)
As Case IPR2014-00916 Patent 5,371,734 we explained in the reply, there really isn't a plain meaning of that limitation, and that's because the English language phrase "during which the hub and the remo tes transmit and receive frames" is susceptible of several different interpretations.
A person of ordinary skill of the art knows that there are going to be times of heavy utilizations in a network like that where you're going t o have at least back -to-back -to-back communication cycles where at least one remote is transmitting, and that's certainly going to meet Atlas's construction of the claim.
Now, Mr. S mith, for the first time as far as I'm aware cited to their expert's declaration to try to fill in that blank saying, well, because it's a high -volume co mmunication, one would understand or at least it would render it obvious t hat Case IPR2014-00916 Patent 5,371,734 you would have communications always fro m the remotes to the hub.
Both Natarajan 1992 expressly discloses an embodiment of high -system utilization where the available bandwidth isn't sufficient for all the remotes to get their requests through in a single communic ation cycle for the entire time that that system was being simulated.
Your Honor, I just wanted to also mention one housekeeping matter before we quit, and I'll invite Mr. Summerfield to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but claim 6 in the Medtronic litigation was found indefinite by the District Court, and I don't think Atlas appealed that.
cite Cite Document

21 Order: Order Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 21 Order - Order Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2015)
Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of persuasion that the claims at issue in this review are unpatentable.
The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
The parties are directed to CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, Paper 118 (Oct. 23, 2013), regarding the appropriate contents of demonstrative exhibits.
The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced
The parties should note that at least one member of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically from a remote location, and that if a demonstrative is not provided in advance or otherwise made fully available or visible to the judge participating remotely, that demonstrative will not be considered.
cite Cite Document

10 Decision Granting Institution: Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder

Document IPR2015-00534, No. 10 Decision Granting Institution - Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015)
Petitioner, Biotronik, Inc., filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 (Ex. 1001, “the ’734 patent”).
Patent Owner, Atlas IP LLC, indicates it does not oppose the Motion for Joinder and it has opted not to file a Preliminary Response.
For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of the ’734 patent and grant Biotronik’s Motion for Joinder.
The Petition in this proceeding sets forth the same grounds and combinations of prior art, the same expert declaration, and the same arguments considered by the board in instituting trial in the St. Jude IPR.
Similar to procedures ordered in other inter partes reviews, Biotronik is willing to be limited to separate filings, if any, of no more than seven pages directed only to points of disagreement with St. Jude, with the understanding it will not be permitted separate arguments in furtherance of those advanced in St. Jude’s consolidated filings.
cite Cite Document

9 Notice: Order Patent Owners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr George Summerfield

Document IPR2015-00534, No. 9 Notice - Order Patent Owners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr George Summerfield (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015)
Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. George Summerfield
Patent Owner, Atlas IP LLC, filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. George C. Summerfield.
Patent Owner also filed a declaration from Mr. Summerfield in support of its motion.
Mr. Summerfield will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of George C. Summerfield is granted, and Mr. Summerfield is authorized to represent Patent Owner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summerfield is to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summerfield is subject to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101– 11.901.
cite Cite Document

4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition

Document IPR2015-00534, No. 4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015)
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 may file an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 2) no later than ten days from the date of this notice.
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.
Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under “Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” 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 Case IPR2015-00534 Patent 5,371,734 Patent Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

17 Order: Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2015 00534 and Grant of Motion for Joinder

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 17 Order - Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2015 00534 and Grant of Motion for Joinder (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015)
Petitioner, Biotronik, Inc., filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 (Ex. 1001, “the ’734 patent”).
Patent Owner, Atlas IP LLC, indicates it does not oppose the Motion for Joinder and it has opted not to file a Preliminary Response.
For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of the ’734 patent and grant Biotronik’s Motion for Joinder.
The Petition in this proceeding sets forth the same grounds and combinations of prior art, the same expert declaration, and the same arguments considered by the board in instituting trial in the St. Jude IPR.
Similar to procedures ordered in other inter partes reviews, Biotronik is willing to be limited to separate filings, if any, of no more than seven pages directed only to points of disagreement with St. Jude, with the understanding it will not be permitted separate arguments in furtherance of those advanced in St. Jude’s consolidated filings.
cite Cite Document

14 Order: Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 425

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 14 Order - Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 425 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015)
Contemporaneously with that Petition, Biotronik filed a Motion for Joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), requesting that we institute an inter partes review in IPR2015-00534 and join that proceeding with this proceeding.
In IPR2015-00534, Patent Owner Atlas IP LLC has been authorized to file an opposition to Biotronik’s Motion for Joinder no later than February 9, 2015.
In addition, Petitioners St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc. are authorized to file in this proceeding, no later than February 9, 2015, an opposition to Biotronik’s Motion for Joinder requesting that IPR2015-00534 be joined with this proceeding.
Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner Atlas IP LLC is authorized to file an opposition to Biotronik’s Motion for Joinder in IPR2015-00534 no later than February 9, 2015, and Patent Owner’s Opposition shall be filed in both IPR2015-00534 and this proceeding; and
Patent 5,371,734 Motion for Joinder requesting that IPR2015-00534 be joined with this proceeding.
cite Cite Document

13 Order: Order Patent Owners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr George Summerfield 37 CFR 4210

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 13 Order - Order Patent Owners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr George Summerfield 37 CFR 4210 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2015)
Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. George Summerfield
Patent Owner, Atlas IP LLC, filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. George C. Summerfield.
Having reviewed the Motion and the declaration of Mr. Summerfield, we conclude that Mr. Summerfield has sufficient qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding and that Patent Owner has shown good cause for Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission.
Mr. Summerfield will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of George C. Summerfield is granted, and Mr. Summerfield is authorized to represent Patent Owner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summerfield is to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summerfield is subject to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101– 11.901.
cite Cite Document

9 Order: Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 42508

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 9 Order - Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 42508 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015)
On January 6, 2015, the initial conference call for this proceeding was held between respective counsel for the parties and Judges Benoit, Pettigrew, and Braden.
We reminded the parties that, except as otherwise provided in our rules, Board authorization is required before filing a motion.
We noted on the call that Mr. George Summerfield has entered an appearance as backup counsel for Patent Owner in this case and indicated that he is to be admitted pro hac vice.
We pointed out, however, that no motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Summerfield has been filed.
We remind the parties that they have been authorized to file motions for pro hac vice admission.
cite Cite Document

7 Institution Decision: Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 7 Institution Decision - Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2014)
Thus, in the context of the entire claim, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the limitation at issue to refer to intervals during which the hub and remotes are allowed to transmit and receive frames, without requiring actual transmission.
Therefore, the system of the preferred embodiment is “capable of establishing one or more communication cycles where no remotes transmit any frames to the hub,” which Patent Owner asserts would not satisfy the claim limitation under its proposed construction.
“A claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that neither of the inbound intervals in Natarajan 1992—Periods B and C—is one in which a remote (mobile station) will transmit frames to the hub (Access Point).
Accordingly, the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 11 is unpatentable for obviousness over Natarajan ’542, Bantz, and Bella.
cite Cite Document

8 Notice: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2014-00916, No. 8 Notice - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2014)
This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution of the proceeding.
The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix D), apply to this proceeding.
For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
The parties are directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to this Scheduling Order and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 >>