• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
510,161 results

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd.

Docket PGR2023-00017, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 31, 2023)
Michael Valek, Susan Mitchell, Zhenyu Yang, presiding
Case TypePost Grant Review
Patent11445727
Patent Owner UPL Ltd.
Petitioner Syngenta Crop Protection AG
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

POSCO v. ArcelorMittal

Docket IPR2019-01275, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 28, 2019)
Christopher Crumbley, Debra Dennett, Michelle Ankenbrand, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent9708683
Patent Owner ArcelorMittal
Petitioner POSCO
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Docket IPR2018-00735, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 5, 2018)
Brent Dougal, James Mayberry, Josiah Cocks, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent7044220
Patent Owner Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Petitioner Schlumberger Technology Corporation
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Docket IPR2018-00736, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 5, 2018)
Brent Dougal, James Mayberry, Josiah Cocks, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent7228904
Patent Owner Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Petitioner Schlumberger Technology Corporation
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

58 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 328a Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information Paper 14 37 CFR § 42223a Denying in Part and Dismissing in Part Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Paper 48 37 CFR § 4264c Denying Patent Owner’s Motions to Seal Papers 30, 45 37 CFR §§ 4214, 4254

Document PGR2023-00017, No. 58 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 328a Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Suppleme...
Nonetheless, Patent Owner opposes entering Exhibit 1022 into the record.
Acknowledging that “Petitioner’s declarant asserts that Nimbus is a mineral oil,” Patent Owner nonetheless contended that the articles relied on by the declarant “say nothing about the contents of the Nimbus product disclosed in Godoy.” ...
Nonetheless, Patent Owner opposes entering Exhibits 1023–1030 into the record.
But Patent Owner points to no evidence, and we find none, to support its argument that “applied sequentially” means repeated application of a premixture of the recited fungicides.
None of these exhibits mentions applying mineral oils as fungicides on soybean crop.
Prior art patents are presumed enabled, and the patentee bears the burden to show nonenablement.
Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the reference anticipated each of the numerous possibilities that resulted from the permutations of the options disclosed in the reference.
First, none of the challenged claims recites efficacy, compatibility, or phytotoxicity.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

57 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document PGR2023-00017, No. 57 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2024)
Now as an initial threshold point here, none of this matters if the Board construes the claims as we think they should, it's what I talked about already, to cover both sequential and simultaneous application.
None of that matters.
They said we can find three components, but they didn't address whether it met the meaning of composition which they offered none of and they didn't address whether they meant the meaning of composition.
But none of them, they make no argument to show how Godoy helps you map through all of this except for that there's overlap between the two references.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

52 Order on Motion: ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270

Document PGR2023-00017, No. 52 Order on Motion - ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2024)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

52 Order on Motion: ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270

Document PGR2023-00017, No. 52 Order on Motion - ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR § 4270 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2024)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>