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

Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.

Docket IPR2022-01150, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 16, 2022)
Kristen Droesch, Michael Zecher, Paul Korniczky, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9189785
Patent Owner Fintiv, Inc.
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Assignee MOZIDO, INC.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

27 Order Denying Director Review of Final Written Decision: Order Denying Director Review of Final Written Decision

Document IPR2022-01150, No. 27 Order Denying Director Review of Final Written Decision - Order Denying Director Review of Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2024)
Before KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The Office received a request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision for the above-captioned case.
The request was referred to me.
Upon consideration of the request, it is: ORDERED that the request for Director Review is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in this case is the final decision of the agency.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

27 Director Review denial on FWD: Order Denying Director Review of Final Written Decision

Document IPR2022-01150, No. 27 Director Review denial on FWD - Order Denying Director Review of Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2024)
Before KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The Office received a request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision for the above-captioned case.
The request was referred to me.
Upon consideration of the request, it is: ORDERED that the request for Director Review is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in this case is the final decision of the agency.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

24 Final Written Decision original: Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a

Document IPR2022-01150, No. 24 Final Written Decision original - Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2024)
Based on the entire record, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of limitations [1.1], [1.2], [1.3.1], and [1.3.2] would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Easterly and Luz.
Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of limitations [1.4.2] and [1.4.3] would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Easterly and Luz.
Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of limitations [1.4.7] and [1.4.8] would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Easterly and Luz.
Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of limitations [1.6] and [1.7] would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Easterly and Luz.
Summary Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Easterly and Luz.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

23 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2022-01150, No. 23 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2023)
And that is look, Easterly teaches that the bar code includes this specific route to settle a transaction, which is what we identified in the Petition as being the selected network.
Now, we argued in our Petition, if I may move us forward to slide 16, that a POSITA would have found it obvious based on Easterly’s disclosures to include all those three pieces of information in Easterly’s bar code.
Patent 9,189,785 B2 bottom, I believe that’s Easterly paragraph 20, talks about that this final bar code contains all the information necessary to authenticate, authorize, clear, and settle a transaction.
I think the other reason, Judge Zecher, that it’s not a fair reading is because there’s no methodology in Easterly that would give the system the smarts to deal with two different preferred clearance routes.
I’d like to turn to dependent claim 4 if I may, which includes the additional requirement that the debit network is selected based on the location at which the payment is initiated.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

18 Order Other: ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270

Document IPR2022-01150, No. 18 Order Other - ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2023)
In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, Patent Owner may request to reserve time for a brief sur- rebuttal.
Finally, the parties are reminded that each presenter should identify clearly and specifically each paper (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.
Either party may request that a qualifying LEAP practitioner participate in the program and conduct at least a portion of the party’s oral argument.
The Board will grant up to fifteen (15) minutes of additional argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and the PTAB’s hearing schedule.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that oral argument shall commence by video conference (1) in IPR2022-01149 at 11:00 am ET on October 3, 2023, and (2) in IPR2022-01150 immediately after the -01149 case, and proceed in the manner set forth herein.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

7 Institution Decision Grant: Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 31...

Document IPR2022-01150, No. 7 Institution Decision Grant - Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Order Other: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2022-01150, No. 8 Order Other - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 >>