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

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Displaying 9-23 of 2,017 results

Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. v. Japan Display Inc.

Docket IPR2021-01058, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 21, 2021)
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent7636142
Patent Owner Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display CO., Ltd.,1
...
cite Cite Docket

Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. v. Japan Display Inc.

Docket IPR2021-01028, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 8, 2021)
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent9793299
Patent Owner Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display CO., Ltd.,1
Patent Owner Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display
...
cite Cite Docket

Panasonic Avionics Corporation v. Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC

Docket IPR2019-00043, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Oct. 9, 2018)
Case TypeInter Partes Review
PatentRE46459
Petitioner Panasonic Avionics Corporation
...
cite Cite Docket

Panasonic Corporation of North America v. Cellspin Soft, Inc.

Docket IPR2019-00131, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Oct. 30, 2018)
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent9258698
Petitioner Panasonic Corporation of North America
Petitioner Panasonic Corporation of North America, Gopro, Inc., Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin
...
cite Cite Docket

9 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Deny

Document IPR2024-00364, No. 9 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Deny (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2024)
A. Principles of Law “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs.
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Moreover, as pointed out by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 25), Petitioner’s position is undermined by and inconsistent with its arguments that the Joint Proposal’s data field discloses “data configured in a second format compatible with a second communication system,” as recited in
These arguments addressing the patentability challenge based on Mujtaba are directly in opposition to Petitioner’s position that the Joint Proposal’s legacy signal field (L-SIG) discloses data configured in a first format compatible with a first communication system.
Based on the record before us, Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the Joint Proposal’s legacy signal field (L-SIG) discloses “data configured in a first format compatible with a first communication system using symbols,” as recited in limitation 8[a] in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning for “data.” b.
cite Cite Document

6 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice Notice filing date accorded

Document IPR2024-00364, No. 6 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice Notice filing date accorded (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2024)
For more information, please consult the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.
The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause.
Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual property field, offer alternative dispute resolution services.
If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, Case IPR2024-00364 Patent No. 8,265,096 mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.
cite Cite Document

BlackBerry Corporation v. Optis Wireless Technology, LLC

Docket IPR2017-00751, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 23, 2017)
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent8199792
Assignee PANASONIC CORPORATION
...
cite Cite Docket

9 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2023-01261, No. 9 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2023)

cite Cite Document

9 Notice refund approved: Notice refund approved

Document IPR2023-01262, No. 9 Notice refund approved - Notice refund approved (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2023)

cite Cite Document

7 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement: Termination Decision Pre DI settlement

Document IPR2023-01261, No. 7 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement - Termination Decision Pre DI settlement (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2023)

cite Cite Document

7 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement: Termination Decision Pre DI settlement

Document IPR2023-01262, No. 7 Termination Decision Pre DI settlement - Termination Decision Pre DI settlement (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2023)

cite Cite Document

4 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice Notice filing date accorded

Document IPR2023-01262, No. 4 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice Notice filing date accorded (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2023)

cite Cite Document

4 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice Notice filing date accorded

Document IPR2023-01261, No. 4 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice Notice filing date accorded (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2023)

cite Cite Document

Panasonic Corporation v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG

Docket IPR2016-01223, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 17, 2016)

cite Cite Docket

Panasonic Corporation v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG

Docket IPR2016-01225, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 17, 2016)

cite Cite Docket
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... >>