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

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, LP

Docket IPR2019-01404, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 26, 2019)
Daniel Galligan, Paul Korniczky, Thomas Giannetti, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7979023
Patent Owner Carucel Investments, LP
Petitioner Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
cite Cite Docket

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Carucel Investments, LP

Docket IPR2019-01103, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 20, 2019)
Daniel Galligan, Paul Korniczky, Thomas Giannetti, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7979023
Patent Owner Carucel Investments, LP
Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Unified Patents, LLC v. Carucel Investments, LP

Docket IPR2019-01079, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 17, 2019)
Daniel Galligan, Paul Korniczky, Thomas Giannetti, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7979023
Patent Owner Carucel Investments, LP
Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC
cite Cite Docket

45 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2019-01404, No. 45 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2024)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-
In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered December 26, 2023, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
cite Cite Document

46 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2019-01404, No. 46 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2024)
“There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a pa- tentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicogra- pher, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecu- tion.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent.
Inter partes reex- aminations are governed by a regulation requiring parties seeking rehearing of a Board decision to “state with partic- ularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the Board’s opinion reflecting its decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1).
For instance, with respect to claim 22 of the ’904 patent, the Board relied on the testimony of pe- titioner’s expert, Dr. Ding, to find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Gil- housen865’s airborne communication system with Gil- housen390’s “various configurations to achieve signal diversity at the receiver,” at least for the purpose of “reduc- ing errors caused by well-known deleterious effects on wirelessly-transmitted signals.” No. 21-1731 J.A.
CARUCEL INVESTMENTS L.P. v. VIDAL credited Dr. Ding’s testimony, considered Carucel’s com- peting evidence, and then found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to combine the teachings of Ito and Paneth with the well-known CDMA technology of Gilhousen390 with a reasonable expectation of success.” No. 21-1731 J.A.
Safety Comm’n, 82 F.4th 1273, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“We will not set aside a CARUCEL INVESTMENTS L.P. v. VIDAL rule absent a showing by the petitioner[] that [it] suffered prejudice from the agency’s failure to provide an oppor- tunity for public comment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs.
cite Cite Document

38 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2019-01103, No. 38 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2024)
“There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a pa- tentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicogra- pher, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecu- tion.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent.
Inter partes reex- aminations are governed by a regulation requiring parties seeking rehearing of a Board decision to “state with partic- ularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the Board’s opinion reflecting its decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1).
For instance, with respect to claim 22 of the ’904 patent, the Board relied on the testimony of pe- titioner’s expert, Dr. Ding, to find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Gil- housen865’s airborne communication system with Gil- housen390’s “various configurations to achieve signal diversity at the receiver,” at least for the purpose of “reduc- ing errors caused by well-known deleterious effects on wirelessly-transmitted signals.” No. 21-1731 J.A.
CARUCEL INVESTMENTS L.P. v. VIDAL credited Dr. Ding’s testimony, considered Carucel’s com- peting evidence, and then found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to combine the teachings of Ito and Paneth with the well-known CDMA technology of Gilhousen390 with a reasonable expectation of success.” No. 21-1731 J.A.
Safety Comm’n, 82 F.4th 1273, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“We will not set aside a CARUCEL INVESTMENTS L.P. v. VIDAL rule absent a showing by the petitioner[] that [it] suffered prejudice from the agency’s failure to provide an oppor- tunity for public comment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs.
cite Cite Document

37 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2019-01103, No. 37 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2024)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-
In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered December 26, 2023, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
cite Cite Document

46 Other other court decision: Other other court decision

Document IPR2019-01079, No. 46 Other other court decision - Other other court decision (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2024)
“There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a pa- tentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicogra- pher, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecu- tion.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent.
Inter partes reex- aminations are governed by a regulation requiring parties seeking rehearing of a Board decision to “state with partic- ularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the Board’s opinion reflecting its decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1).
For instance, with respect to claim 22 of the ’904 patent, the Board relied on the testimony of pe- titioner’s expert, Dr. Ding, to find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Gil- housen865’s airborne communication system with Gil- housen390’s “various configurations to achieve signal diversity at the receiver,” at least for the purpose of “reduc- ing errors caused by well-known deleterious effects on wirelessly-transmitted signals.” No. 21-1731 J.A.
CARUCEL INVESTMENTS L.P. v. VIDAL credited Dr. Ding’s testimony, considered Carucel’s com- peting evidence, and then found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to combine the teachings of Ito and Paneth with the well-known CDMA technology of Gilhousen390 with a reasonable expectation of success.” No. 21-1731 J.A.
Safety Comm’n, 82 F.4th 1273, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“We will not set aside a CARUCEL INVESTMENTS L.P. v. VIDAL rule absent a showing by the petitioner[] that [it] suffered prejudice from the agency’s failure to provide an oppor- tunity for public comment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>