• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
257,440 results

3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc.

Docket IPR2019-00160, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 8, 2018)
Brian McNamara, Elizabeth Roesel, Neil Powell, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent8675207
Patent Owner Align Technology, Inc.
Petitioner 3Shape A/S
Petitioner 3shape
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ServiceMax, Inc. v. Malek Heating & Cooling

Docket 87584777, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 8, 2018)
Case TypeExtension of Time
TagsExtension, Time
MarksGOSERVICEMAX.COM
Defendant Malek Heating & Cooling
Potential Opposer ServiceMax, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

FRIED NYC

Docket 97564365, Trademark (Aug. 25, 2022)
Case TypeTrademark
ClassBakery desserts; Coffee drinks; 046
MarksFRIED NYC
Owner at Publication Malek, Michael
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

METHODS OF TREATING TUMOR

Docket 17/44,163, U.S. Patent Application (Sept. 30, 2020)
Art Group1643
Case TypeUtility - 424/133100
Class424
Inventor Nicholas Allan John Botwood
Inventor Yali Fu
Inventor George A. Green, IV
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

31 Order: JUDGMENTGranting Request for Adverse Judgment After Institution of Trial37 CFR ¿¿ 4273b

Document IPR2019-00160, No. 31 Order - JUDGMENTGranting Request for Adverse Judgment After Institution of Trial37 CFR ¿¿ 4273b (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2020)
The parties may not use this style caption for any subsequent papers without prior Board authorization.
On February 7, 2020, Align Technology, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Adverse Judgment in each proceeding.
Patent Owner states that it filed U.S. Reissue Application No. 16/784,515, which cancelled claims 1–21.
In IPR2019-00156, Patent Owner requests that the Board acknowledge the cancellation of claims 1–21 and enter adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).
In IPR2019-00160, Patent Owner requests that the Board acknowledge the cancellation of claims 1–7 and 12–21 and enter adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

29 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2019-00160, No. 29 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2020)
The parties may not use this style caption for any subsequent papers without prior Board authorization.
On February 7, 2020, Align Technology, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Adverse Judgment in each proceeding.
Patent Owner states that it filed U.S. Reissue Application No. 16/784,515, which cancelled claims 1–21.
In IPR2019-00156, Patent Owner requests that the Board acknowledge the cancellation of claims 1–21 and enter adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).
In IPR2019-00160, Patent Owner requests that the Board acknowledge the cancellation of claims 1–7 and 12–21 and enter adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

25 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2019-00156, No. 25 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2020)
The parties may not use this style caption for any subsequent papers without prior Board authorization.
On February 7, 2020, Align Technology, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Adverse Judgment in each proceeding.
Patent Owner states that it filed U.S. Reissue Application No. 16/784,515, which cancelled claims 1–21.
In IPR2019-00156, Patent Owner requests that the Board acknowledge the cancellation of claims 1–21 and enter adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).
In IPR2019-00160, Patent Owner requests that the Board acknowledge the cancellation of claims 1–7 and 12–21 and enter adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

15 Order: Order Denying Patent Owners Request for Consolidation

Document IPR2019-00156, No. 15 Order - Order Denying Patent Owners Request for Consolidation (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)
Patent Owner argues that consolidation “would benefit judicial economy by limiting duplicative arguments and proceedings.” Paper 12, 1.
As support for its request, Patent Owner points to a commonality of issues, specifications, claim features, and asserted grounds of unpatentability across the three proceedings.
Instead of a “shortened, combined record” (Paper 12, 3), Patent Owner’s proposed consolidation would substantially expand the record the Board would be required to review before reaching a final determination in each case.
Yet Patent Owner provides no explanation for why a doubling of the word count limit is necessary to address this single issue.
We acknowledge the commonality of specifications, claim features, and asserted grounds of unpatentability across the three proceedings.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>