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

FedEx Corporation v. Human Sciences HC Ltd

Docket IPR2017-01786, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 17, 2017)
Christa Zado, Elizabeth Roesel, John Horvath, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent7755479
Patent Owner Human Sciences HC Ltd
Petitioner FedEx Corporation
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

28 Termination Decision Document: Dismissing Petitions and Terminating Inter Partes Review37 CFR secs 425a, 4271a, and 4272

Document IPR2017-01786, No. 28 Termination Decision Document - Dismissing Petitions and Terminating Inter Partes Review37 CFR secs 425a, 4271a, and 4272 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2018)
Nonetheless, the burden of persuasion remains with the party asserting standing as patent owner to demonstrate ownership of the challenged patent.
None of the individuals identified in the Consent Resolution is named as an initial director in the Certificate of Incorporation. Ex. 1025, 3–4.
As already discussed, however, none of these individuals was an initial director of InfrAegis, formerly known as Intelagents. Ex. 1025, 3–4.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

22 Order: ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2017-01786, No. 22 Order - ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2018)
As noted in our March 12, 2018 Order, there is a lack of clarity in these cases regarding who, if anyone, is the rightful owner of the challenged patents.
Paper 16, 2–6.2 Pursuant to our March 12th Order, Petitioner filed a Notice of Basis for Relief Requested under 37 C.F.R. § 42.21.
Having reviewed Petitioner’s Notice, we grant Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to dismiss and terminate Cases IPR2017-01786 and IPR2017-01830 (collectively, “these proceedings”).
The page limits set forth in 37 2 For the sake of simplicity, we cite only to IPR2017-01830, and omit corresponding citations to IPR2017-01761 and IPR2017-01786, unless expressly indicated otherwise.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a motion to dismiss and terminate IPR2017-01786 and IPR2017-01830, limited to the relief set forth in Case IPR2017-01830 (Paper 17), within ten (10) calendar days of entry of this Order; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file an opposition to Petitioner’s motion within ten (10) calendar days of the filing of Petitioner’s motion;
cite Cite Document
Analyze

15 Order Conduct of Proceeding: Order Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2017-01786, No. 15 Order Conduct of Proceeding - Order Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)
We nonetheless include this case in our discussion to the extent we describe background and facts leading to Petitioner’s requests.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

16 Order Conduct of Proceeding: Order Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2017-01786, No. 16 Order Conduct of Proceeding - Order Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)
We nonetheless include this case in our discussion to the extent we describe background and facts leading to Petitioner’s requests.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Notice: Denying Petitioners Request for Rehearing37 CFR sec 4271

Document IPR2017-01786, No. 14 Notice - Denying Petitioners Request for Rehearing37 CFR sec 4271 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)
Petitioner nonetheless challenges certain findings of fact in the Decision.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Order: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2017-01786, No. 8 Order - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018)
Absent good cause shown, we will not conduct an initial conference call later than 30 days after the institution of a trial.
Patent Owner should arrange for a conference call with the panel and opposing counsel at least one week before DUE DATE 1 in order to satisfy the conferral requirement.
Depositions The parties are advised that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix D), apply to this proceeding.
For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

7 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2017-01786, No. 7 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018)
The disclosed security system and method is described as providing “protection of fixed and mobile assets against theft, tampering, or terrorist attacks using nuclear, chemical, or biological materials.” Id. at 5:49–52.
Consistent with the express definition set forth in the ’479 patent, we construe the term “agent” as “a self-powered electrical or electromechanical sensing and communicating device for monitoring a physical location and a security status of a cargo container.” Our claim construction is not final.
Richards discloses that monitor 1114 is adapted to receive signals from impulse radio transmitter 1132 and to communicate with remotely located central station 1112 to provide information relating to structure 1116a and its contents 1134.
Petitioner does not, however, assert that Richards’ impulse radio transmitters 1132 and sensors 1126 monitor a physical location of a cargo container, as required by claim element [ii] given the ’479 patent’s express definition for “agent.” Ex. 1001, 5:31–34.
Based on the particular circumstances presented in this case, we determine that inclusion of all grounds of unpatentability stated in the Petition will advance our overarching goal of securing the just, speedy, and efficient resolution of the parties’ dispute.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>