• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 54-68 of 964 results

15 Refund Approval: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2020-00828, No. 15 Refund Approval - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2020)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on April 15, 2020 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $15,000.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.
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), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

No. 224 ANSWER to 112 Amended Complaint (Second Amended Complaint), COUNTERCLAIM against Philips North ...

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit, Inc., 1:19-cv-11586, No. 224 (D.Mass. Aug. 24, 2021)
Answer
Fitbit denies that it “has committed acts of direct and joint infringement in this Judicial District.” The remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint contain nonfactual characterizations and legal conclusions that require no response.
The MPEP quotes a decision from the Seventh Circuit, stating: [W]e think that it is unfair to the busy examiner, no matter how diligent and well informed he may be, to assume that he retains details of every pending file in his mind when he is reviewing a particular application….
The court ultimately found the failure to disclose a copending application with substantially identical claims met the “threshold level of materiality” because a double patenting rejection “establishes, by itself…a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim.” Id. at 1366.
Denial of all remedies and relief sought by Philips in its Complaint; A finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and/or other applicable laws, and awarding Fitbit its costs, expenses, and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
Counterclaim Defendant Philips North America LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 3000 Minuteman Road, Andover, MA 01810.
cite Cite Document

No. 59 ORDER by Judge Andre Birotte Jr

Document Philips North America LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. et al, 2:19-cv-06301, No. 59 (C.D.Cal. Mar. 9, 2020)
Motion to Appear Pro Hac ViceGranted
Name and address: Lucas Igfiéqggfifigflmfififlfis Document 59 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:916 FOLEY 8r LARDNER LLP 1 1 1 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2500 Boston, MA 02199
The Court, having determined whether the required fee has been paid, and having reviewed the Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice filed by W— °f FOLEY 8: LARDNER LLP Applicant’s Name (Last Name, First Name (9' Middle Initial) 111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2500 617.342.4000 617.342.4001 Boston, MA 02199
Name(s) ofParty(ies) Represented Plaintiffls) [:l Defendant(s) El Other: and designating as Local Counsel lean-Paul Ciardullo Designee’s Name (Last Name, First Name e9 Middle Initial) 284170 2139724500 213.486.0065 of FOLEY 8r LARDNER LLP 555 5- Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 —241 1
D for failure to attach a Certificate of Good Standing issued within 30 days prior to filing of Application.
1.3.4; Local Counsel: D is not member of Bar of this Court; [:I does not maintain office in District.
cite Cite Document

13 Institution Decision: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2020-00828, No. 13 Institution Decision - Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)
For the reasons discussed below in connection with Factor 5, we consider the facts surrounding the Garmin case, including the trial date, as relevant to our determination of whether to invoke our discretion to deny institution.
Patent 8,277,377 B2 current record as to the work already completed as of the time of this Decision, we determine that this factor weighs somewhat in favor of invoking our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.
Petitioner responds by stipulating “that it will not pursue, in district court, invalidity of the ’377 patent based on any instituted IPR ground.” Reply 6 (citing Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2020-00204, Paper 11 at 16– 17 (PTAB June 19, 2020).
Petitioner also asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Browne’s exercise monitoring system to use a method of downloading a software application from a remote server over the Internet as taught by Hsu.
With respect to the merits of this asserted ground, Patent Owner argues, inter alia, that neither the Petition nor the Sarrafzadeh Declaration adequately explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would make the two modifications.
cite Cite Document

No. 352

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 352 (D.Mass. Mar. 15, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 350 NOTICE of Appearance by Henry Lassister Ard on behalf of Fitbit LLC (Ard, Henry) (Entered: ...

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 350 (D.Mass. Mar. 10, 2022)
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5.2, and Docket No. 258, please enter the appearance of Henry L. Ard of Desmarais LLP, as counsel of record for Defendant Fitbit LLC in the above-captioned matter.
I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.
cite Cite Document

No. 206

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit, Inc., 1:19-cv-11586, No. 206 (D.Mass. Jun. 29, 2021)

cite Cite Document

No. 337

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 337 (D.Mass. Mar. 2, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 340

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 340 (D.Mass. Mar. 2, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 332

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 332 (D.Mass. Mar. 2, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 341

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 341 (D.Mass. Mar. 2, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 324

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 324 (D.Mass. Feb. 23, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 321

Document Philips North America LLC v. Fitbit LLC, 1:19-cv-11586, No. 321 (D.Mass. Feb. 23, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 54

Document Philips North America LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. et al, 2:19-cv-06301, No. 54 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 8, 2020)

cite Cite Document

No. 52

Document Philips North America LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. et al, 2:19-cv-06301, No. 52 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 8, 2020)

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... >>