• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 39-53 of 981 results

15 Order: Order Resetting Initial Conference Call

Document IPR2013-00561, No. 15 Order - Order Resetting Initial Conference Call (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2014)
Resetting Initial Conference Call
1 The parties are not authorized to use this caption.
It is ORDERED that the initial conference call with the Board scheduled for 2:00 PM Eastern Time on March 28, 2014 is adjourned to 2:00 PM Eastern Time on March 31, 2014.
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 come prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered March 4, 2014 and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
cite Cite Document

15 Notice: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2013-00559, No. 15 Notice - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2014)
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 petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
a. The petitioner must file any motion for an observation on the cross-examination testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE DATE 4. b.
Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R § 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4.
a. The patent owner must file any reply to a petitioner observation on cross- examination testimony by DUE DATE 5. b.
cite Cite Document

14 Institution Decision: Decision Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2013-00559, No. 14 Institution Decision - Decision Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2014)
The importance of the unique OID‟s is that they act as direct pointers to other records which eliminates the necessity for a query to search through unrelated columns, rows, and cells for additional related data.
We identify the claimed function as “searching the table for the pointer.” With respect to the “means for searching,” Microsoft states that the corresponding structure is: “a general purpose computer or other similar digital device having an index.” Pet. 19.
We are persuaded that Microsoft has provided sufficient evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Horn to include references between different records, or rows, in an employee table such as described in Chang.
We are not persuaded by Enfish‟s argument that it would not be obvious to combine Horn with Chang because Chang‟s system catalogs Case IPR2013-00559 Patent 6,163,775 (SYS.TABLES and SYS.COLUMNS) do not satisfy the preceding limitations in the claim for the same reason as discussed supra, III.A., footnote 3.
Therefore, based on Case IPR2013-00559 Patent 6,163,775 the record before us, Microsoft has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the ground of unpatentability of claims 11 and 41 as obvious over Chang in view of Webb.
cite Cite Document

14 Notice: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2013-00561, No. 14 Notice - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2014)
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 petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
a. The petitioner must file any motion for an observation on the cross-examination testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE DATE 4. b.
Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R § 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4.
a. The patent owner must file any reply to a petitioner observation on cross- examination testimony by DUE DATE 5. b.
cite Cite Document

13 Institution Decision: Decision Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C...

Document IPR2013-00561, No. 13 Institution Decision - Decision Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 CFR 42108 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2014)

cite Cite Document

13 Notice: Decision Motion to Correct Declaration

Document IPR2013-00560, No. 13 Notice - Decision Motion to Correct Declaration (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)
In support of the motion, Petitioner proffers declarations from its lead counsel, Amy Simpson, as well as from Dr. Hosking.
Lead counsel states she notified the Board of the lack of these statements in the declaration immediately after she realized that neither was present.
As the Board discussed in IPR2013-00063, Paper 23, the rule permitting correction of clerical errors is remedial in nature, and is, therefore, entitled to a liberal construction.
Here, Patent Owner had the original Hosking declarations and responded to them on the merits in the preliminary response.
For the reasons set forth above, and in IPR2013- 00063, Paper 23, we conclude that it was, and therefore determine that Petitioner has carried its burden of showing correctible error under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c).
cite Cite Document

10 Notice: Order Conduct of the Proceedings

Document IPR2013-00560, No. 10 Notice - Order Conduct of the Proceedings (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2014)
December 20, 2013, for authorization to correct the Declaration of Antony Hosking, Ph.D., previously submitted in support of the Petition in each of these proceedings.
Accordingly, Petitioner is authorized to file a motion to correct the Hosking Declaration in each of these proceedings.
The motion must be accompanied by a statement under oath (affidavit or declaration) explaining how and why the error occurred.
Patent Owner that email communications with the Board that address substantive issues, unless authorized, are contrary to the rules.
Hosking Declaration to add a statement conforming with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68, or alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and the motion shall be due within five business days of the entry date of this order; FURTHER ORDERED that the motion shall be accompanied by a detailed accounting under oath of the error and how and why it occurred, based upon actual knowledge of the person or persons involved; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall have five business days from service of the motion to file an opposition; FURTHER ORDERED that the motion and opposition are each limited to five pages maximum; FURTHER ORDERED that before filing any opposition, counsel shall meet and confer (by telephone or in person) to discuss resolving the motion, and shall promptly report the result to the Board in a joint email.
cite Cite Document

13 Notice: Decision Motion to Correct Declaration

Document IPR2013-00559, No. 13 Notice - Decision Motion to Correct Declaration (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)
In support of the motion, Petitioner proffers declarations from its lead counsel, Amy Simpson, as well as from Dr. Hosking.
Lead counsel states she notified the Board of the lack of these statements in the declaration immediately after she realized that neither was present.
As the Board discussed in IPR2013-00063, Paper 23, the rule permitting correction of clerical errors is remedial in nature, and is, therefore, entitled to a liberal construction.
Here, Patent Owner had the original Hosking declarations and responded to them on the merits in the preliminary response.
For the reasons set forth above, and in IPR2013- 00063, Paper 23, we conclude that it was, and therefore determine that Petitioner has carried its burden of showing correctible error under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c).
cite Cite Document

12 Notice: Decision Motion to Correct Declaration

Document IPR2013-00561, No. 12 Notice - Decision Motion to Correct Declaration (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)
In support of the motion, Petitioner proffers declarations from its lead counsel, Amy Simpson, as well as from Dr. Hosking.
Lead counsel states she notified the Board of the lack of these statements in the declaration immediately after she realized that neither was present.
As the Board discussed in IPR2013-00063, Paper 23, the rule permitting correction of clerical errors is remedial in nature, and is, therefore, entitled to a liberal construction.
Here, Patent Owner had the original Hosking declarations and responded to them on the merits in the preliminary response.
For the reasons set forth above, and in IPR2013- 00063, Paper 23, we conclude that it was, and therefore determine that Petitioner has carried its burden of showing correctible error under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c).
cite Cite Document

10 Notice: Order Conduct of the Proceedings

Document IPR2013-00559, No. 10 Notice - Order Conduct of the Proceedings (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2014)

cite Cite Document

9 Notice: Order Conduct of the Proceedings

Document IPR2013-00561, No. 9 Notice - Order Conduct of the Proceedings (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2014)
December 20, 2013, for authorization to correct the Declaration of Antony Hosking, Ph.D., previously submitted in support of the Petition in each of these proceedings.
Accordingly, Petitioner is authorized to file a motion to correct the Hosking Declaration in each of these proceedings.
The motion must be accompanied by a statement under oath (affidavit or declaration) explaining how and why the error occurred.
Patent Owner that email communications with the Board that address substantive issues, unless authorized, are contrary to the rules.
In view of the foregoing, it is, therefore: ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a motion to correct the Hosking Declaration to add a statement conforming with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68, or alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and the motion shall be due within five business days of the entry date of this order; FURTHER ORDERED that the motion shall be accompanied by a detailed accounting under oath of the error and how and why it occurred, based upon actual knowledge of the person or persons involved; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall have five business days from service of the motion to file an opposition; FURTHER ORDERED that the motion and opposition are each limited to five pages maximum; FURTHER ORDERED that before filing any opposition, counsel shall meet and confer (by telephone or in person) to discuss resolving the motion, and shall promptly report the result to the Board in a joint email.
cite Cite Document

7 Notice: Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2013-00560, No. 7 Notice - Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

cite Cite Document

8 Notice: Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2013-00559, No. 8 Notice - Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

cite Cite Document

7 Notice: Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2013-00561, No. 7 Notice - Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

cite Cite Document

3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petitio...

Document IPR2013-00560, No. 3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2013)

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>