• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 39-53 of 380,543 results

21 Institution Decision Grant: Institution Decision Grant

Document IPR2023-00024, No. 21 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2023)
Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition ... and any response ... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).
The Board determined that “[i]nstitution of an inter partes review under these circumstances would not be consistent with ‘an objective of the AIA ... to provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court litigation.’” Id. (citing Gen.
“[T]he Board’s cases addressing earlier trial dates as a basis for denial under NHK have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (designated precedential).
Fintiv, Paper 11 at 11 (“If the evidence shows that the petitioner filed the petition expeditiously, such as promptly after becoming aware of the claims being asserted, this fact has weighed against exercising the authority to deny institution under NHK.”).
“Conversely, if the petition includes materially different grounds, arguments, and/or evidence than those presented in the district court, this fact has tended to weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution under NHK.” Id. at 12–13.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

22 Order Other: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2023-00025, No. 22 Order Other - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2023)
In stipulating to move any due dates in the scheduling order, the parties must be cognizant that the Board requires four weeks after the filing of an opposition to the motion to amend (or the due date for the opposition, if none is filed) for ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

21 Institution Decision Grant: Institution Decision Grant

Document IPR2023-00025, No. 21 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2023)
The Board determined that “[i]nstitution of an inter partes review under these circumstances would not be consistent with ‘an objective of the AIA ... to provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court litigation.’” Id. (citing Gen.
“[T]he Board’s cases addressing earlier trial dates as a basis for denial under NHK have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (designated precedential).
We are also guided by the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”),3 which provides several clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors.
Fintiv, Paper 11 at 11 (“If the evidence shows that the petitioner filed the petition expeditiously, such as promptly after becoming aware of the claims being asserted, this fact has weighed against exercising the authority to deny institution under NHK.”).
“Conversely, if the petition includes materially different grounds, arguments, and/or evidence than those presented in the district court, this fact has tended to weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution under NHK.” Id. at 12–13.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

22 Order Other: SCEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2023-00023, No. 22 Order Other - SCEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2023)
In stipulating to move any due dates in the scheduling order, the parties must be cognizant that the Board requires four weeks after the filing of an opposition to the motion to amend (or the due date for the opposition, if none is filed) for ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

21 Institution Decision Grant: Institution Decision Grant

Document IPR2023-00023, No. 21 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2023)
Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition ... and any response ... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).
“[T]he Board’s cases addressing earlier trial dates as a basis for denial under NHK have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (designated precedential).
Fintiv, Paper 11 at 11 (“If the evidence shows that the petitioner filed the petition expeditiously, such as promptly after becoming aware of the claims being asserted, this fact has weighed against exercising the authority to deny institution under NHK.”).
“Conversely, if the petition includes materially different grounds, arguments, and/or evidence than those presented in the district court, this fact has tended to weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution under NHK.” Id. at 12–13.
As discussed in more detail below, we find the evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner for these challenges persuasive on this preliminary record and sufficient to meet our standard for instituting inter partes review.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Order on Motion: Order on Motion

Document IPR2023-00024, No. 14 Order on Motion - Order on Motion (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2023)
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
To correct its mistakes, Patent Owner requests that we expunge the versions of Exhibits 2001 and 2002 filed with its pro hac vice motions, that we deny its pro hac vice motions without prejudice, and that Patent Owner refile its pro hac vice motions and declarations using new exhibit numbers.
In each of the captioned proceedings, Patent Owner filed as Paper 6 a motion for pro hac vice admission of Nathan Levenson and as Paper 7 a motion for pro hac vice admission of Patrick J. Conroy.
In each of the captioned proceedings, Patent Owner filed as Exhibit 2001 a Declaration of Patrick J. Conroy and as Exhibit 2002 a Declaration of Nathan Levenson in support of their respective pro hac vice motions.
For PATENT OWNER: Matthew Phillips Kevin Laurence Derek Meeker
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Order on Motion: Order on Motion

Document IPR2023-00025, No. 14 Order on Motion - Order on Motion (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Order on Motion: Order on Motion

Document IPR2023-00023, No. 14 Order on Motion - Order on Motion (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

43 Other other: Authorized Response to Director Review Request

Document IPR2023-01183, No. 43 Other other - Authorized Response to Director Review Request (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

19 Motion PHV: Petitioners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jeffre...

Document IPR2023-01183, No. 19 Motion PHV - Petitioners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jeffrey Colin (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

41 Request for Director Review Final Written Decision: Patent Owners Request for D...

Document IPR2023-01183, No. 41 Request for Director Review Final Written Decision - Patent Owners Request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

15 Motion PHV: Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2023-01183, No. 15 Motion PHV - Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

12 Motion PHV: Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2023-01183, No. 12 Motion PHV - Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

13 Motion PHV: Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2023-01183, No. 13 Motion PHV - Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Motion PHV: Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

Document IPR2023-01183, No. 14 Motion PHV - Patent Owners Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>