• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
94 results

Alarm.com Incorporated v. Vivint, Inc.

Docket IPR2015-01965, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 24, 2015)
Charles Boudreau, James Arpin, Michael Zecher, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent7884713
Patent Owner Vivint, Inc.
Petitioner Alarm.com Incorporated
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

38 Court Decision: CAFC Decision 71318

Document IPR2015-01965, No. 38 Court Decision - CAFC Decision 71318 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)
None of the relief sought in the appeal was granted.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

39 Court Mandate: CAFC Mandate

Document IPR2015-01965, No. 39 Court Mandate - CAFC Mandate (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)
Appellee Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-01965, Administrative Patent Judge Charles J. Boudreau, Administrative Patent Judge James B. Arpin, Administrative Patent Judge Michael R. Zecher.
In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered July 13, 2018, and pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

36 Termination Decision Document: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2015-01965, No. 36 Termination Decision Document - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)
None of these recitations defines the term “map,” other than to make clear that a map may have a “marker” and a “boundary” placed upon it.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

35 Hearing Transcript: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2015-01965, No. 35 Hearing Transcript - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)
... the New Oxford Dictionary of English, Webster’s New World College Dictionary, the New World Dictionary of the American Language, as well as the scientific dictionary, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, none ...
I’ve adequately talked about the nonexistence of the NAT system in the ’950 disclosure.
BROOKS: Well, I think it would be too narrow, but we would -- but it would be anticipated -- but it would be -- that aspect of the claim would be anticipated by Johnson ’950 nonetheless.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

32 Order: Order Oral Argument

Document IPR2015-01965, No. 32 Order - Order Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)
Patent Owner, Vivint, Incorporated (“Vivint”), requests thirty (30) minutes, in total, to present arguments in Case IPR2015-01965 (Paper 31), and requests seventy-five (75) minutes, in total, to present arguments in Case IPR2015-01977 (Paper 36).
The parties must initiate a conference call with us at least two (2) business days prior to the hearing date to resolve any dispute over the propriety of each party’s demonstrative exhibits.
For further guidance on what constitutes an appropriate demonstrative exhibit, the parties are directed to CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118).
We take this opportunity to remind the parties that each presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit, e.g., by slide or screen number, referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
The parties also should note that two members of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically from remote locations.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

29 Order: Denying Change to Rescheduled Due Date 7

Document IPR2015-01965, No. 29 Order - Denying Change to Rescheduled Due Date 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)
2 IPR2015-01965 (Patent 7,884,713 B1) IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2) 7, and Patent Owner informed us that none of its counsel has a conflict with the rescheduled Due Date 7.3 Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

28 Order: Granting Petitioners Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr Khadpe

Document IPR2015-01965, No. 28 Order - Granting Petitioners Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr Khadpe (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2016)
Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Marc J. Khadpe 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
Petitioner, Alarm.com, Inc., moves for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Marc J. Khadpe.
Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying Declarations from Mr. Khadpe, we conclude that Mr. Khadpe has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in these cases, that Mr. Khadpe has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the subject matter of these cases, and that there is a need for Petitioner to have counsel with experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters involved in these cases.
Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for Mr. Khadpe’s pro hac vice admission.
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Khadpe shall comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42, of the Code of Federal Regulations; and FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Khadpe is subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>