h. “monitoring means for monitoring the status of the network power supply” (‘140 patent, claim 14) IV’s Proposed Construction Subject to §112, ¶6 Function: “monitoring the status of the network power supply” Structure: The SMACC; the SMACC processor; voltage detection circuitry; and/or equivalents.

See ’140 patent, 7:25-44, 11:25-36, 17:64-18:4, 18:20- 51, 19:23- 31, 19:65-20:4, LGL’s Proposed Construction Subject to §112, ¶6 Function: “monitoring the status of the network power supply” Structure: Indefinite

“reporting means” (‘140 patent, claim 14) LGL’s Proposed Construction Subject to §112, ¶6 Function: “reporting the status of the network power supply” Structure: Indefinite

LGL’s Proposed Construction Subject to §112, ¶6 Function: “monitoring connection attempts made through the management access controller” Structure: Algorithm disclosed at ’140 Patent, 22:4-25 and Figure 32.

n. cyclically advancing the first OFDM packet by shifting the samples in a first direction” (‘439 patent, claims 1 and 7) IV’s Proposed Construction Plain and ordinary meaning

The referral of this case to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland is hereby vacated.

SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2024.

Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

For claim element 1[h], Petitioner shows that it would have been obvious to modify Diggs to power up a second ECC module when the same metric, e.g., bit error rate, exceeds a certain threshold.

For example, Patent Owner again points to a supposed “mismatch” between the error detectors and correctors in Diggs and Cheng, arguing that to make Petitioner’s combination, “a skilled artisan would first need to understand what is within Diggs’ ECC detection and correction module 125.” PO Resp. 31, 33.

Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would have considered other features disclosed in Cheng does not weigh against Petitioner’s showing that it would have been obvious to combine Diggs’ memory system with Cheng’s teaching of a second ECC circuit that powers up when the error rate is high.

Lastly, Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have reasonably expected Petitioner’s combination of Diggs and Cheng to achieve reduced processing time and increased performance.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania Western District - Daily Judgment List For 11/20/2023 November 20, 2023 - Judgments entered and Opinions filed in the following cases:

v. Lucas, G. McLaughlin, J.

Author: Disposition: Vacated/Remanded Associated: 100 WDA 2020

Author: Disposition: Affirmed Fink, C. v. White, K. Olson, J.

Instance 2053560137 Page 1 Printed November 20, 2023 at 11:33 am

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 13, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0001196-2021

John Eckert, III appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his open guilty plea to ten counts of possession of child pornography.

Eckert pleaded guilty to ten counts of possession of child pornography graded as a second-degree felony and the remaining charges were dismissed.

This Court issued a rule to show cause directing Eckert to address why the appeal should not be quashed as untimely as there is no motion for reconsideration in the record.

Counsel relied on the docket entry indicating that post- sentence motions were denied on October 25, 2022, and filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of that date.

... (“[P]rior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Patent Owner does not meet its burden to prove that Wu is nonenabling.

... (“[P]rior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Patent Owner does not meet its burden to prove that Wu is nonenabling.

Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

But other examples of decoding are not relevant to the parties’ dispute because Petitioner does not attempt to prove its case based on any definition of “decoding” other than mere buffering or distinguishing between error correction and information bits.

10 In addition, Petitioner contends that “the page buffer 504 must necessarily distinguish and associate page-level ECC bits with each set of sector data before sending [it] to error detectors 510a-b.” Id.

For the first time in the reply brief, Petitioner contends that “[s]toring ECC bits on a page-level rather than by sector was known before the ’700 Patent” and relies on Dr. Koralek’s opinion that “page-level encoding would have been an obvious implementation in view of Lee’s teachings.” Pet.

Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and recites “dynamically modifying the error detection sub-modules assigned to receive data from respective sectors of flash memory.” Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would understand that Kim’s code rate controlling block 2600 (i.e., read controller) dynamically modifies error detection sub-modules by setting the ECC decoding block to varying code rates that correspond to specific memory sectors.” Pet. 41.

Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC,

NXP Semiconductors N.V., NXP B.V., and NXP USA, Inc.,

The Court, having considered the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the First Scheduling Order (ECF No. 79), GRANTS the motion, and modifies the schedule as follows.

Event Current Date New Deadline Close of fact discovery October 27, 2023 January 26, 2024 Opening expert reports November 9, 2023 February 8, 2024 Rebuttal expert reports December 8, 2023 March 8, 2024 Close of expert discovery December 22, 2023 March 22, 2024 Second case narrowing meet and confer deadline Dispositive and Daubert motion deadline Oppositions to dispositive and Daubert motions December 29, 2023 March 29, 2024 January 12, 2024 April 12, 2024 January 26, 2024 April 26, 2024 Serve pretrial disclosures January 26, 2024 April 26, 2024 File replies in support of dispositive and Daubert motions February 2, 2024 May 3, 2024 Event Current Date New Deadline Serve objections to pretrial disclosures and rebuttal disclosures Parties jointly email law clerks to confirm pretrial conference and trial dates Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures; file motions in limine File joint pretrial order, pretrial submissions, and oppositions to motions in limine File notice of request for daily transcript or real time reporting; Deadline to file replies to motions in limine File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial disclosures and motions in limine February 9, 2024 May 10, 2024 February 9, 2024 May 10, 2024 February 16, 2024 May 17, 2024 February 23, 2024 May 24, 2024 March 8, 2024 June 7, 2024 March 15, 2024 June 14, 2024 Final pretrial conference March 28, 2024 June 27, 2024 Jury selection/trial April 8, 2024 July 8, 2024

SIGNED this 27th day of October, 2023.

The problem is that none of these metrics are the ones that Petitioner or its expert identified in Cheng for powering on a second ECC circuit.

Author: Disposition: Quashed and Remanded Mock, T. v. Adams, R. McLaughlin, J.

Author: Disposition: Affirmed Biros, C. v. American Harness Tracks McLaughlin, J.

Author: Disposition: Affirmed Healthcare Ventures v. Premier Pharmacy McLaughlin, J.

Author: Disposition: Affirmed Associated: 1407 WDA 2022 Tibbitt, E. v. Eagle Home Inspections Lazarus, J.

Instance 2052669156 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Western District - Daily Judgment List Page 2 Printed September 29, 2023 at 12:12 pm

* OPINION BY OLSON, J.: FILED: September 29, 2023 Appellant, Christian Alexander Lowe, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 1, 2022.

At sentencing, the parties stipulated that Appellant’s prior convictions rendered him ineligible to participate in Pennsylvania’s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (“RRRI”) program.

As explained above, the trial court originally sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of 87 to 178 months in prison for his convictions.

Therefore, the exceptions to the general rule do not apply to Appellant’s case and the trial court simply lacked statutory authority to declare that Appellant was eligible for parole “prior to the expiration of [Appellant’s] minimum sentence.”3 42 Pa.C.S.A.

1988) (common pleas court retains authority to grant and revoke parole for offender sentenced to maximum term of imprisonment of less than two years).

J. SCOTT McBRIDE Bartlit Beck LLP 1801 Wewatta St Denver Co 80202 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, August 30, 2023, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.

In the institution decision there was a statement that Petitioner did not explain how modifying figure 6 to include a separate scrambler for each memory channel would be consistent with Jo's teaching about having a more efficient utilization of area and circuitry.

And I say they rely on the arrows drawn because it's clear that no text or description that specifies and describes decoding to generate a plurality of data streams coming out of figure 8’s scrambler exists in Wu.

But to the - - but, the fact of the matter is that if you're going to say in the manner of our back and forth somehow we have to get multiple data streams in parallel between the scramblers and those engines, a person of skill would recognize there's going to either have to be a modification or there was some kind of a mistake in not putting the specific structure desired there in the first place.

And neither of these cites are -- have support for the idea that improved reliability or reduced interference benefit or that they are in some way attributable to this specific position versus the Wan figure 8b on-chip scrambler embodiment itself.

And in some parts they say it requires data manipulation or computation, but none of that is in the claim. None of that is required in the claim.

Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

Patent 8,966,347 B2 Date and Time for Oral Argument Pursuant to our August 17, 2023, Order (Paper 28), an in-person hearing was set for September 21, 2023.

On September 20, 2023, Petitioner’s counsel, Brian Buroker, who was slated to present argument on behalf of Petitioner, contacted the Board via email and made an unopposed request for postponement of the hearing, stating that he tested positive for COVID that morning and was feeling unwell.

During the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.

If at any time during the hearing, counsel encounters technical or other difficulties that fundamentally undermine counsel’s ability to adequately represent its client, please let the panel know immediately, and adjustments will be made.1