• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
29 results

Apple Inc. v. Arigna Technology Limited

Docket IPR2023-00453, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 11, 2023)
Garth Baer, Sharon Fenick, Steven Amundson, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7183835
Patent Owner Arigna Technology Limited
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

9 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2023-00453, No. 9 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2023)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on January 11, 2023 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $22,500 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 PTACTS System, accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

7 Institution Decision Deny: Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314

Document IPR2023-00453, No. 7 Institution Decision Deny - Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2023)
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a graduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least two years of relevant work experience (e.g., in the field of circuit design).” Pet. 14.
To support Patent Owner’s assertions, Dr. Taylor testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Ohi “to suggest a functional goal potentially met by multiple designs,” including “quite a few modifications” to Figure 12’s circuitry that “delay the beginning of the detection time period using a delay circuit 41 and an inverter 42.” Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 44, 49.
But Ohi teaches that adding extra capacitance to the positive input of the comparator both reduces sensitivity to the initial peak in the gate waveform and makes the Miller plateau broader, both easing the precision required of delay circuits 31 and 41.
And Dr. Taylor provides four example modifications to Figure 12’s circuitry that (1) exclude “a recovery time period immediately after the IGBT is turned on” and (2) do not employ a “pulse generation circuit” outputting a “first pulse signal” as required by limitation 1(c).
The Federal Circuit explained that the district court was “wrong to combine parts of the separate protocols shown in the iKP reference” because “differences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Id. at 1371.
cite Cite Document

5 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice filing date accorded

Document IPR2023-00453, No. 5 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice filing date accorded (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2023)

cite Cite Document

8 Other Refund request: Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees

Document IPR2023-00453, No. 8 Other Refund request - Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post Institution Fees (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2023)

cite Cite Document

6 POPR filed: Patent Owners Preliminary Response to Petition for Inter Partes Re...

Document IPR2023-00453, No. 6 POPR filed - Patent Owners Preliminary Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No 7,183,835 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2023)

cite Cite Document

4 Notice Mandatory Notice: Notice Mandatory Notice

Document IPR2023-00453, No. 4 Notice Mandatory Notice - Notice Mandatory Notice (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2023)

cite Cite Document

3 Notice Power of Attorney: Notice Power of Attorney

Document IPR2023-00453, No. 3 Notice Power of Attorney - Notice Power of Attorney (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2023)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 >>