• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 39-53 of 421 results

56 Exhibit List: Patent Owners Updated Exhibit List

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 56 Exhibit List - Patent Owners Updated Exhibit List (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)
on in M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13-cv-02385 (D.Minn.) Declaration of James R. Steele, Dated Sept. 11, 2015 Declaration of Gregory J. Steele, Dated Sept. 11, 2015 About Us – Dynamic Air Inc. Corporate Profile; webpage image captured July 23, 2016 Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook, 2005 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific And Technical Terms (5th Edition), 1993; Excerpts Kraus, “Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Materials,” 1980 Gray et al. “Composition and Properties of Oil Well Drilling Fluids,” 1980
Konrad, “Dense-Phase Pneumatic Conveying: A Review,” Powder Technology, 49 (1986) 1-35 Declaration of Dr. Stuart Brown re IPR2016-00262
Email Correspondence between Todd Werner and Scott Pivnick spanning June 17, 2015 – July 7, 2015 Initial Protective Order; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4857, Doc.
No. 42 (D. Minn. July 9, 2015) Amended Protective Order; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4857, Doc.
No. 178 (D. Minn. December 3, 2015) Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit REDACTED Transcript from November 15, 2016 Deposition of Colin Lauder REDACTED Transcript from November 16, 2016 Deposition of Colin Lauder
cite Cite Document

30 Motion: PO Motion to Seal

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 30 Motion - PO Motion to Seal (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016)
As part of this motion to seal, Patent Owner respectfully requests entry of the Protective Order found in Exhibit 2049.
Filed contemporaneously as Exhibit 2049 and 2048 are clean and red-lined versions, respectively, of Patent Owner’s proposed stipulated protective order to be entered in these proceedings.
Patent Owner submits that publically disclosing its confidential trade secrets and business information, discussed in these documents, especially to a competitor, is not necessary for the Board to reach a written decision in these proceedings.
That is, the Board may find commercial success and industry adoption, without publically disclosing actual sales date or necessarily identifying each of the CCB jobs by name.
Patent Owner, through the undersigned, hereby certifies that it has in good faith conferred with Petitioner in an effort to resolve all disputes relative to sealing the aforementioned documents.
cite Cite Document

30 Motion: PO Motion to Seal

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 30 Motion - PO Motion to Seal (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016)
As part of this motion to seal, Patent Owner respectfully requests entry of the Protective Order found in Exhibit 2049.
Filed contemporaneously as Exhibit 2049 and 2048 are clean and red-lined versions, respectively, of Patent Owner’s proposed stipulated protective order to be entered in these proceedings.
Patent Owner submits that publically disclosing its confidential trade secrets and business information, discussed in these documents, especially to a competitor, is not necessary for the Board to reach a written decision in these proceedings.
That is, the Board may find commercial success and industry adoption, without publically disclosing actual sales date or necessarily identifying each of the CCB jobs by name.
Patent Owner, through the undersigned, hereby certifies that it has in good faith conferred with Petitioner in an effort to resolve all disputes relative to sealing the aforementioned documents.
cite Cite Document

17 Motion: Petitioners Motion to Limit the Length of Expert Depositions

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 17 Motion - Petitioners Motion to Limit the Length of Expert Depositions (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
All of the claims at issue in the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are supported by a single specification that is less than three pages long, and Petitioner relies on the same prior art in each of those petitions.
Unfortunately, Patent Owner declined this offer, instead demanding sixteen hours, which would push the deposition into a third day (without even accounting for any redirect by Petitioner).
While the instituted grounds involve slightly different combinations, all of them are based on the same small group of prior art references, many of which are directed to the same underlying equipment.
The parties further agreed that depositions of experts offering opinions on both infringement and invalidity would be limited to fourteen hours.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on July 27, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion to Limit the Length of Expert Depositions was served via electronic mail upon the following: Bruce J.
cite Cite Document

20 Motion: Motion to Limit the Length of the Expert Testimony

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 20 Motion - Motion to Limit the Length of the Expert Testimony (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
Pursuant to the authorization provided by the Board via email on July 20, 2016, Patent Owner M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. respectfully requests the Board set the maximum length for the deposition of Petitioner’s expert witness, John W. Carson, Ph.D., to be fourteen (14) hours.1 Patent Owner and Petitioner are currently involved in six, ongoing inter partes review proceedings spanning more than one hundred claims across five patents.2 In each of these proceedings, Petitioner has submitted a separate declaration from its chosen expert witness, John W. Carson, Ph.D. Dr. Carson’s declarations are voluminous, spanning approximately five hundred pages.3 In order to question Dr. Carson regarding each of his declarations and the statements presented in each respective declaration, Patent Owner seeks to conduct a consolidated cross-examination, limited to fourteen (14) hours of testimony over two days.
Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c)(2), a patent owner may cross examine an opposing expert witness for up to seven (7) hours in each inter partes review proceeding.
Moreover, the Board has recognized that affording a patent owner additional time is reasonable when a petitioner relies on an expert in multiple proceedings.
Consequently, Patent Owner M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. respectfully requests the Board afford it fourteen (14) hours to cross-examine Dr. Carson.
was served electronically via e-mail on July 27, 2016 in its entirety on the following: Alan G. Carlson Dennis C. Bremer Todd S. Werner Nathan D. Louwagie
cite Cite Document

19 Motion: Motion to Terminate

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 19 Motion - Motion to Terminate (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
As alleged in the 1 Patent Owner filed its initial complaint against DAI and DAL on August 30, 2013 in M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13-cv-2385 (D. Minn.) (“the First Minnesota Litigation”).
the petition identifies all real parties-in-interest.” This requirement assists the Board in weighing conflicts of interest, estoppel issues under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), and the credibility of presented evidence.
However, when the accuracy of an identification questioned, “the ultimate burden of proof remains with the petitioner to establish that it has complied with the statutory requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) to identify all real parties-in-interest.” Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added).
The Board may consider a broad array of factors, including whether the non-party “exercised or could have exercised control over [the petitioner’s] participation in a proceeding” and the non-party’s “relationship with the petitioner,” Id. at 7-9 (internal citations omitted).
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE was served electronically via e-mail on July 27, 2016 in its entirety on the following: Alan G. Carlson Dennis C. Bremer Todd S. Werner Nathan D. Louwagie
cite Cite Document

53 Exhibit List: Patent Owners Updated Exhibit List

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 53 Exhibit List - Patent Owners Updated Exhibit List (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)
Exhibit Number 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Exhibit Title Complaint for Patent Infringement; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13- cv-02385 (D.Minn. Aug. 30, 2013) Memorandum of Law in Support of Dynamic Air Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13-cv-02385 (D.Minn. Oct. 10, 2013) Memorandum Opinion and Order; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13- cv-02385 (D.Minn. Mar. 1, 2016) Correspondence Regarding Service of Dynamic Air Ltda.
on in M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13-cv-02385 (D.Minn.) Declaration of James R. Steele, Dated Sept. 11, 2015 Declaration of Gregory J. Steele, Dated Sept. 11, 2015 About Us – Dynamic Air Inc. Corporate Profile; webpage image captured July 23, 2016 Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook, 2005 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific And Technical Terms (5th Edition), 1993; Excerpts Kraus, “Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Materials,” 1980 Gray et al. “Composition and Properties of Oil Well Drilling Fluids,” 1980
Email Correspondence between Todd Werner and Scott Pivnick spanning June 17, 2015 – July 7, 2015 Initial Protective Order; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4857, Doc.
No. 42 (D. Minn. July 9, 2015) Amended Protective Order; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4857, Doc.
No. 178 (D. Minn. December 3, 2015) Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit REDACTED Transcript from November 15, 2016 Deposition of Colin Lauder REDACTED Transcript from November 16, 2016 Deposition of Colin Lauder
cite Cite Document

17 Motion: Petitioners Motion to Limit the Length of Expert Depositions

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 17 Motion - Petitioners Motion to Limit the Length of Expert Depositions (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
All of the claims at issue in the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are supported by a single specification that is less than three pages long, and Petitioner relies on the same prior art in each of those petitions.
Unfortunately, Patent Owner declined this offer, instead demanding sixteen hours, which would push the deposition into a third day (without even accounting for any redirect by Petitioner).
While the instituted grounds involve slightly different combinations, all of them are based on the same small group of prior art references, many of which are directed to the same underlying equipment.
The parties further agreed that depositions of experts offering opinions on both infringement and invalidity would be limited to fourteen hours.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on July 27, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion to Limit the Length of Expert Depositions was served via electronic mail upon the following: Bruce J.
cite Cite Document

19 Motion: Motion to Terminate

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 19 Motion - Motion to Terminate (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
As alleged in the 1 Patent Owner filed its initial complaint against DAI and DAL on August 30, 2013 in M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13-cv-2385 (D. Minn.) (“the First Minnesota Litigation”).
the petition identifies all real parties-in-interest.” This requirement assists the Board in weighing conflicts of interest, estoppel issues under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), and the credibility of presented evidence.
However, when the accuracy of an identification questioned, “the ultimate burden of proof remains with the petitioner to establish that it has complied with the statutory requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) to identify all real parties-in-interest.” Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added).
The Board may consider a broad array of factors, including whether the non-party “exercised or could have exercised control over [the petitioner’s] participation in a proceeding” and the non-party’s “relationship with the petitioner,” Id. at 7-9 (internal citations omitted).
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE was served electronically via e-mail on July 27, 2016 in its entirety on the following: Alan G. Carlson Dennis C. Bremer Todd S. Werner Nathan D. Louwagie
cite Cite Document

20 Motion: Motion to Limit the Length of the Expert Testimony

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 20 Motion - Motion to Limit the Length of the Expert Testimony (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)
Pursuant to the authorization provided by the Board via email on July 20, 2016, Patent Owner M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. respectfully requests the Board set the maximum length for the deposition of Petitioner’s expert witness, John W. Carson, Ph.D., to be fourteen (14) hours.1 Patent Owner and Petitioner are currently involved in six, ongoing inter partes review proceedings spanning more than one hundred claims across five patents.2 In each of these proceedings, Petitioner has submitted a separate declaration from its chosen expert witness, John W. Carson, Ph.D. Dr. Carson’s declarations are voluminous, spanning approximately five hundred pages.3 In order to question Dr. Carson regarding each of his declarations and the statements presented in each respective declaration, Patent Owner seeks to conduct a consolidated cross-examination, limited to fourteen (14) hours of testimony over two days.
Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c)(2), a patent owner may cross examine an opposing expert witness for up to seven (7) hours in each inter partes review proceeding.
Moreover, the Board has recognized that affording a patent owner additional time is reasonable when a petitioner relies on an expert in multiple proceedings.
Consequently, Patent Owner M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. respectfully requests the Board afford it fourteen (14) hours to cross-examine Dr. Carson.
was served electronically via e-mail on July 27, 2016 in its entirety on the following: Alan G. Carlson Dennis C. Bremer Todd S. Werner Nathan D. Louwagie
cite Cite Document

16 Other Not for motions: PO Notice of Deposition of Dr John W Carson, PhD

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 16 Other Not for motions - PO Notice of Deposition of Dr John W Carson, PhD (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016)
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.53, Patent Owner, M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd., by and through its attorneys, will conduct a consolidated cross-examination by deposition of John W. Carson, Ph.D. regarding his declaration submitted in each
Mr. Carson’s deposition will take place, as agreed by counsel for the parties, on August 9, 2016, commencing at 9:00 a.m. (local time), at the offices of Carlson Caspers, Capella Tower, Suite 4200 225 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, and continuing into August 10, 2016 as the Board allows.
The cross-examination will take place before a Notary Public or other officer authorized by law to administer oaths.
Rose (Reg. No. 37,431) Christopher TL Douglas (Reg. No. 56,950) Attorneys for Patent Owner M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER, NOTICE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JOHN W. CARSON, Ph.D. was served electronically via e-mail on July 22, 2016 in its entirety on the following: Alan G. Carlson Dennis C. Bremer
cite Cite Document

53 Exhibit List: PO Updated Exhibit List

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 53 Exhibit List - PO Updated Exhibit List (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)
on in M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., Case No. 13-cv-02385 (D.Minn.) Declaration of James R. Steele, Dated Sept. 11, 2015 Declaration of Gregory J. Steele, Dated Sept. 11, 2015 About Us – Dynamic Air Inc. Corporate Profile; webpage image captured July 23, 2016 Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook, 2005 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific And Technical Terms (5th Edition), 1993; Excerpts Kraus, “Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Materials,” 1980 Gray et al. “Composition and Properties of Oil Well Drilling Fluids,” 1980
Konrad, “Dense-Phase Pneumatic Conveying: A Review,” Powder Technology, 49 (1986) 1-35 Declaration of Dr. Stuart Brown re IPR2016-00262
Email Correspondence between Todd Werner and Scott Pivnick spanning June 17, 2015 – July 7, 2015 Initial Protective Order; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4857, Doc.
No. 42 (D. Minn. July 9, 2015) Amended Protective Order; M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4857, Doc.
No. 178 (D. Minn. December 3, 2015) Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit REDACTED Transcript from November 15, 2016 Deposition of Colin Lauder REDACTED Transcript from November 16, 2016 Deposition of Colin Lauder
cite Cite Document

13 Opposition: EXPUNGED

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 13 Opposition - EXPUNGED (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)
BLANK BLANK
cite Cite Document

11 Motion: Declaration of Todd Werner in Support of Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 11 Motion - Declaration of Todd Werner in Support of Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)
Title: Method and Apparatus For Pneumatic Conveying of Drill Cuttings
This declaration is submitted on behalf of Petitioner, Dynamic Air Inc., in support of its Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Litigation Counsel.
I am an attorney with the law firm of Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman, P.A.
I previously sought and was granted permission to appear pro hac vice in IPR No. 2013-00401 on January 6, 2014.
I am intimately familiar with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding, and also, more generally, the patent laws of the United States of America.
cite Cite Document

10 Motion: Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Litigation Counsel

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 10 Motion - Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Litigation Counsel (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)
Pursuant to the Notice in this case authorizing the parties to file motions for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) (November 25, 2015, Doc.
The Minnesota Infringement Action has been ongoing for over a year and a half, and the parties have invested significant time and financial resources in litigating the validity of the patents.
As a result, Mr. Werner has developed an intimate familiarity with the challenged patents and their invalidity, and Dynamic Air wishes to have its existing litigation counsel continue representing it in this matter before the Board.
Pursuant to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Alan G. Carlson, a registered practitioner, will remain as lead counsel in this matter.
Pursuant to the requirements of the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639 (superseding the similar Order in
cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>