• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 39-53 of 567 results

8 Order: Authorizing Reply to Preliminary Response

Document IPR2016-01426, No. 8 Order - Authorizing Reply to Preliminary Response (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2016)
Petitioner explained that, in the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to identify all of the real parties-in-interest.
Petitioner also indicated that it plans to submit additional evidence with the reply, including a declaration previously filed with a district court.
Patent Owner responded that Petitioner had not made a showing of good cause, as required to warrant a reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
Patent Owner pointed out that the portion of the Preliminary Response that addresses the real party-in-interest issue only relies on information that was known to Petitioner at the time the Petition was filed.
The scope of the reply is limited to addressing any alleged factual inaccuracies in the portion of the Preliminary Response that relates to the real party-in-interest issue.
cite Cite Document

24 Other Not for motions: Decision 37 CFR 42108, 42122b

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 24 Other Not for motions - Decision 37 CFR 42108, 42122b (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017)
Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., and Netgear, Inc. (collectively, “Ruckus”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 39, 40, 47, 55, and 69 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’838 patent”).
Ruckus also filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”) requesting that it be joined to IPR2016-01397, Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., a pending inter partes review involving the ’838 patent.
For the reasons discussed below, we institute an inter partes review on all of the challenged claims in this proceeding, and we grant Ruckus’s Motion for Joinder.
Patent 9,019,838 B2 As the moving party, Ruckus bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief requested in the Motion for Joinder.
Patent Owner shall not be required to provide any additional discovery or deposition time as a result of the joinder.
cite Cite Document

24 Other: Decision 37 CFR 42108, 42122b

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 24 Other - Decision 37 CFR 42108, 42122b (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017)
Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., and Netgear, Inc. (collectively, “Ruckus”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 39, 40, 47, 55, and 69 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’838 patent”).
Ruckus also filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”) requesting that it be joined to IPR2016-01397, Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., a pending inter partes review involving the ’838 patent.
For the reasons discussed below, we institute an inter partes review on all of the challenged claims in this proceeding, and we grant Ruckus’s Motion for Joinder.
Patent 9,019,838 B2 As the moving party, Ruckus bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief requested in the Motion for Joinder.
Patent Owner shall not be required to provide any additional discovery or deposition time as a result of the joinder.
cite Cite Document

13 Refund Approval: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2016-01758, No. 13 Refund Approval - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2017)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on 09/08/2016 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $14,000 has been refunded to the Petitioner’s deposit account.
Case IPR2016-01758 Patent 9,019,838 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 Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E) system, accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
For the PATENT OWNER:
cite Cite Document

21 Order: Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Jonathan Kagan

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 21 Order - Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Jonathan Kagan (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017)
Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Jonathan Kagan
Petitioner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Jonathan Kagan in the above-listed proceedings.
Counsel may be admitted pro hac vice upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel is a registered practitioner.
Specifically, if lead counsel is a registered practitioner, back-up counsel may be permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” Id. For the reasons set forth in the Motion and the accompanying declaration of Mr. Kagan (see, e.g., IPR2016-01391, Ex. 1019), we find that good cause exists to admit Mr. Kagan pro hac vice in the above-listed proceedings.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and Jonathan Kagan is authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in the above-listed proceedings; FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceedings; FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Kagan is to comply with the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and is subject to the IPR2016-01389 Patent 8,155,012 B2 IPR2016-01391 Patent 8,942,107 B2 IPR2016-01397 Patent 9,019,838 B2 IPR2016-01399 Patent 8,902,760 B2 USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a); and FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order will be placed in each of the above captioned cases.
cite Cite Document

18 Order: UPDATED SCHEDULING ORDER, WITHDRAWAL and ENTRY OF LEAD C...

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 18 Order - UPDATED SCHEDULING ORDER, WITHDRAWAL and ENTRY OF LEAD COUNSEL (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

cite Cite Document

19 Order: ERRATA

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 19 Order - ERRATA (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

cite Cite Document

17 Order: Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 17 Order - Decision Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

cite Cite Document

11 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2016-01758, No. 11 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2017)

cite Cite Document

14 Termination Settlement After Institution: Termination Settlement after institution

Document IPR2016-01151, No. 14 Termination Settlement After Institution - Termination Settlement after institution (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2017)

cite Cite Document

8 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 8 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017)

cite Cite Document

9 Order: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2016-01397, No. 9 Order - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017)

cite Cite Document

3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Accord Filing Date

Document IPR2016-01426, No. 3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

cite Cite Document

9 Decision Granting Institution: Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2016-01151, No. 9 Decision Granting Institution - Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

cite Cite Document

10 Order: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2016-01151, No. 10 Order - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

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