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

PersonalWeb Technologies LLC et al v. Rackspace US, Inc. et al

Docket 6:12-cv-00659, Texas Eastern District Court ()
Judge Rodney Gilstrap, presiding
Patent
09/19/2012
SUMMONS Issued as to Rackspace Hosting, Inc., Rackspace US, Inc. and emailed to pltf for service. (Attachments: # 1 Summons(es))(klb) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
09/17/2012
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Rackspace Hosting, Inc., Rackspace US, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3785085.), filed by PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, Level 3 Communications, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet)(Baxter, Samuel) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
cite Cite Docket

EMC Corporation v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC

Docket IPR2013-00085, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 17, 2012)
Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, Michael Zecher, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7945539
Petitioner EMC Corporation
Patent Owner PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
Petitioner Vmware
...
cite Cite Docket

No. 93 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Document PersonalWeb Technologies LLC et al v. Rackspace US, Inc. et al, 6:12-cv-00659, No. 93 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 11, 2016)
In addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.
Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony.
This interpretation conflicts with the intrinsic record because it presumes that any and every user with access to a file has a license, and ultimately leads to contradictory results in the asserted claims.
Hellman’s users need to request authorization to use software that they already have.” (Id., Ex. 6, ’442 Re-Examination File History, July 30, 2009 Response to Office Action in an Ex Parte Reexamination, at 13 (PWEB 115610).)
Also, during prosecution of the ’442 Patent, the patentee stated that “in [the] Hellman [reference] the user already has the file and is merely requesting authorization to use that file.” (Id., Ex. 7, Feb. 14, 2010 Response to Final Office Action, at 14 (PWEB 156228) (emphasis in original).)
cite Cite Document

73 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2013-00085, No. 73 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2014)
“A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it ... .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
At the outset, we note that, although a “teaching away” argument could be relevant to an obviousness analysis, “whether a reference teaches away from an invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.” ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Even if Kantor expresses a general preference for applying a function to uncompressed files to obtain contents signatures before they are compressed, that itself does not operate to criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the aforementioned claim limitation.
2013) (citing Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Basalite Concrete Prods., LLC, 2011 WL 6436210, *9 n.9 (D. Minn. 2011)) (Documents generated by a website called the Wayback Machine have been accepted generally as evidence of prior art in the patent context); U.S. v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634, 667-68 (3d.
We also agree with EMC that the documents concerning prior versions of Kantor are relevant, and not prejudicial or confusing as alleged by PersonalWeb, because such circumstantial evidence provides context and corroboration for the witnesses’ independent knowledge and recollection.
cite Cite Document

72 Order: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2013-00085, No. 72 Order - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2014)
This predates the Internet that we now know and love with the worldwide web and html browsers and the days when people used something called ftp or file transfer protocol.
And we've already heard, at least in the Eastern District of Texas case, that that's too narrow, that's reading limitations into the claim when you're starting to ask to find all instances of the data.
We explained in our papers that they request a file, when it initiates the restore, and its identified by the binary object identification record 58 and the Board correctly noted, as you see here on the screen, that that includes the hash.
It is in the decision on page 25 where we talk about contents signatures and crc hash combined with the length looking inside the file to determine that.
So, as we believe we demonstrated in our paper and I hope I answered your questions on that, we believe that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable for the grounds that the Board instituted, and I would like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.
cite Cite Document

71 Notice: Appearance Record

Document IPR2013-00085, No. 71 Notice - Appearance Record (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2013)
u.s. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
This form, properly fillerd out, should be placed in the file of the above numbered proceeding at the commencement of the hearing.
,, 7 ,, EMC Corporation and Vmware, Inc.
cite Cite Document

70 Notice: Order Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2013-00085, No. 70 Notice - Order Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2013)
Introduction On December 12, 2013, a telephone conference call was held between respective counsel for the parties and Judges Turner, Chang, and Zecher.
The telephone conference call was initiated by PersonalWeb to discuss the propriety of EMC’s demonstrative exhibit (Ex. 10972) and the usage of “October 1993 Walnut Creek CD-ROM” at the final oral hearing, which is scheduled for December 16, 2013.
Introducing new evidence at this late juncture—when the trial issues had been briefed fully by both parties—would prejudice PersonalWeb, who would not have the opportunity to respond or challenge the authentication of the CD-ROM.
For the foregoing reasons, EMC is not authorized to use the physical copy of the “October 1993 Walnut Creek CD-ROM” at the final oral hearing.
As noted by the Board, demonstrative exhibits merely include evidence or arguments that have been submitted previously in the proceeding.
cite Cite Document

62 Notice: Order Trial Hearing

Document IPR2013-00085, No. 62 Notice - Order Trial Hearing (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013)
The oral arguments for all six inter partes reviews will be merged and conducted at the same time, i.e., not in seriatim.
Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at issue are unpatentable.
Therefore, at oral hearing, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with respect to the challenged claims and grounds the Board instituted trial in all six inter partes reviews.
The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time, on December 16, 2013, and it will be open to the public for in-person attendance, on the ninth floor
They shall be filed with the Board three business days prior to the hearing and the parties must initiate a conference call with the Board at least two business days prior to the hearing to resolve any dispute over the propriety of each party’s demonstrative exhibits.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 13 14 >>