• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 99-113 of 639 results

46 Order: Revised Trial Order

Document IPR2016-00708, No. 46 Order - Revised Trial Order (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)
1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in all fourteen of these cases.
The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for subsequent papers without Board preapproval.
In a March 14, 2017 email communication to the Board, the parties made two additional requests.
Patent Owner requests that the hearing take place over three days from April 5–7th.
Argument will commence at 9:00 AM on April 6, 2017, and continue on April 7, 2017 (as needed), in Hearing Room A, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
cite Cite Document

45 Order: Revised Trial Order

Document IPR2016-00770, No. 45 Order - Revised Trial Order (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)
1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in all fourteen of these cases.
The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for subsequent papers without Board preapproval.
In a March 14, 2017 email communication to the Board, the parties made two additional requests.
Patent Owner requests that the hearing take place over three days from April 5–7th.
Argument will commence at 9:00 AM on April 6, 2017, and continue on April 7, 2017 (as needed), in Hearing Room A, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
cite Cite Document

45 Order: Order Trial Hearing

Document IPR2016-00708, No. 45 Order - Order Trial Hearing (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017)
The hearing will commence at 9:00 AM on April 5, 2017, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
If the parties have any concern about disclosing confidential information, they are to contact the Board at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at issue in each review are unpatentable.
The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
Requests for special equipment will not be honored unless presented in a separate communication not less than seven business days before the hearing, directed to the above email address.
cite Cite Document

44 Order: Order Trial Hearing

Document IPR2016-00770, No. 44 Order - Order Trial Hearing (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017)
The hearing will commence at 9:00 AM on April 5, 2017, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
If the parties have any concern about disclosing confidential information, they are to contact the Board at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at issue in each review are unpatentable.
The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
Requests for special equipment will not be honored unless presented in a separate communication not less than seven business days before the hearing, directed to the above email address.
cite Cite Document

No. 40 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending denial of D.I. 25 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Induced ...

Document Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, 1:14-cv-01430, No. 40 (D.Del. Sep. 29, 2015)
The sufficiency of pleadings for non-fraud cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
These include the following allegations: (a) the '239 patent has been cited by at least 40 issued U.S. patents since 2008, including by a number of other companies in the semiconductor field such as Micron Technology, Inc. (hereinafter "Micron," a Defendant in a The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs additional allegation that "[u]pon information and belief, since 2000, Samsung followed Mr. Leedy's Elm 3DS portfolio as it obtained the patents-in-suit" is a bare conclusion, devoid of any factual support.
31 at 2- 3) The Court does not consider it here, and will focus on the remaining factual allegations Plaintiffs put forward in order to demonstrate that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '239 patent.
26 at 9), but because if true (as the Court must assume them to be), they render it more likely that Defendants (who are also participants in the allegedly "tight knit" semiconductor industry) may have been similarly aware of the '239 patent's existence and its contents.
(Id at ~~ 66-68) Plaintiff then plausibly alleges that Defendants knew that its semiconductor chips at issue were in fact incorporated into its customers' finished electronics products sold in the United States.
cite Cite Document

38 Decision: PO Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael C Newman 37 CFR 4210

Document IPR2016-00708, No. 38 Decision - PO Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael C Newman 37 CFR 4210 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)
Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Michael C. Newman
1 This Order addresses issues that are substantially similar in the proceedings.
Patent Owner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Michael C. Newman.
Mr. Newman will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
It is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Michael C. Newman is granted, and Mr. Newman 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. Newman is to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
cite Cite Document

37 Decision: PO Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael C Newman 37 CFR 4210

Document IPR2016-00770, No. 37 Decision - PO Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael C Newman 37 CFR 4210 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)
Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Michael C. Newman
1 This Order addresses issues that are substantially similar in the proceedings.
Patent Owner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Michael C. Newman.
Mr. Newman will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
It is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Michael C. Newman is granted, and Mr. Newman 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. Newman is to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
cite Cite Document

32 Order: Decision Patent Owners Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Cousnel

Document IPR2016-00708, No. 32 Order - Decision Patent Owners Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Cousnel (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)
As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Patent Owner provides a substitute power of attorney, appointing Mr. Meunier and Mr. Renaud, in support of its motion.
Patent Owner contends granting its motion “will not hinder the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, or the ability of the Office to timely complete” these proceedings.
Patent Owner also indicates that new counsel meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and are registered practitioners.
ORDERED that Mr. Cyrus Morton (Reg. No. 44,954), Ms. Kelsey Thorkelson (Reg. No. 73,130), and Mr. Samuel Walling are no longer counsel in the instant proceedings;
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. William Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193) is designated as lead counsel for Patent Owner, and Mr. Michael T. Renaud (Reg. No. 44,299) is designated as backup counsel for Patent Owner in the instant proceedings; and FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. James Carmichael (Reg. No. 45,306) will remain as back-up counsel for Patent Owner in the instant proceedings.
cite Cite Document

31 Order: Decision Patent Owners Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Cousnel

Document IPR2016-00770, No. 31 Order - Decision Patent Owners Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Cousnel (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)
As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Patent Owner provides a substitute power of attorney, appointing Mr. Meunier and Mr. Renaud, in support of its motion.
Patent Owner contends granting its motion “will not hinder the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, or the ability of the Office to timely complete” these proceedings.
Patent Owner also indicates that new counsel meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and are registered practitioners.
ORDERED that Mr. Cyrus Morton (Reg. No. 44,954), Ms. Kelsey Thorkelson (Reg. No. 73,130), and Mr. Samuel Walling are no longer counsel in the instant proceedings;
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. William Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193) is designated as lead counsel for Patent Owner, and Mr. Michael T. Renaud (Reg. No. 44,299) is designated as backup counsel for Patent Owner in the instant proceedings; and FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. James Carmichael (Reg. No. 45,306) will remain as back-up counsel for Patent Owner in the instant proceedings.
cite Cite Document

No. 156 NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Samuel L. Walling as co-counsel

Document Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, 1:14-cv-01430, No. 156 (D.Del. Aug. 8, 2017)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to D. Del LR 83.7, the appearance of Samuel L. Walling is hereby withdrawn, as Mr. Walling has moved firms to Jones Day.
Dated: August 8, 2017
Respectfully submitted, FARNAN LLP
cite Cite Document

26 Order: Order Petitioners Pro Hac Vice Motion for Mr Andrew B Grossman

Document IPR2016-00708, No. 26 Order - Order Petitioners Pro Hac Vice Motion for Mr Andrew B Grossman (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)
Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Andrew B. Grossman
1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each case.
Having reviewed the motion and the declaration of Mr. Grossman, we conclude that Mr. Grossman has sufficient qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding and that Petitioner has shown good cause for Mr. Grossman’s pro hac vice admission.
Mr. Grossman will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
It is: ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Andrew B. Grossman is granted, and Mr. Grossman is authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding;
cite Cite Document

25 Order: Order Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr Harold Davis

Document IPR2016-00708, No. 25 Order - Order Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr Harold Davis (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)
Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Harold H. Davis, Jr.
Having reviewed the motion and the declaration of Mr. Davis, we conclude that Mr. Davis has sufficient qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding and that Petitioner has shown good cause for Mr. Davis’s pro hac vice admission.
Mr. Davis will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
It is: ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Harold H. Davis, Jr. is granted, and Mr. Davis is authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding;
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Davis is to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), 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. Davis 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

24 Order: Order Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr Harold Davis

Document IPR2016-00770, No. 24 Order - Order Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr Harold Davis (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)
Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Harold H. Davis, Jr.
Having reviewed the motion and the declaration of Mr. Davis, we conclude that Mr. Davis has sufficient qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding and that Petitioner has shown good cause for Mr. Davis’s pro hac vice admission.
Mr. Davis will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
It is: ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Harold H. Davis, Jr. is granted, and Mr. Davis is authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding;
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Davis is to comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), 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. Davis 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

25 Order: Order Petitioners Pro Hac Vice Motion for Mr Andrew B Grossman

Document IPR2016-00770, No. 25 Order - Order Petitioners Pro Hac Vice Motion for Mr Andrew B Grossman (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)
Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Andrew B. Grossman
1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each case.
Having reviewed the motion and the declaration of Mr. Grossman, we conclude that Mr. Grossman has sufficient qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding and that Petitioner has shown good cause for Mr. Grossman’s pro hac vice admission.
Mr. Grossman will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
It is: ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Andrew B. Grossman is granted, and Mr. Grossman is authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding;
cite Cite Document

17 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2016-00708, No. 17 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted “unless ... the information presented in the petition ... and any response ... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support its combination of Hsu or Bertin ’945 with Leedy ’695 in that the superficial similarities of the CVD processes of the references would guide one of ordinary skill.
On the present record and for purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the dielectric of Leedy ’695 into Hsu or into Bertin ’945 as modified by Poole.
Leedy ’695 explains that low tensile stress is important because otherwise “surface flatness and membrane structural integrity will in many cases be inadequate for subsequent device fabrication steps or the ability to form a sufficiently durable free standing membrane.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:63–6:5).
We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not pointed to any portion of Bertin ’945, Leedy ’695, Poole, or Sakuta that describes a segmented logic circuit that is functionally related in accordance with our understanding of claim 49.
cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... >>