Patent Reissue. Devan Padmanabhan. Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
|
|
- Lorena Horton
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Patent Reissue Devan Padmanabhan Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
2 Patent Correction A patent may be corrected in four ways Reissue Certificate of correction Disclaimer Reexamination
3 Roadmap Reissue Rules and Procedures Using Reissue to Provoke an Interference A Comparison of Reissue to Reexam Practice Tips
4 Basics of Reissue Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall... reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.... No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. 35 U.S.C. 251
5 Reissue Statistics*
6 Despite large numbers of patents being reissued, the relative number of reissued patents is at a near all-time low*
7 Pendency of Reissue Continues to Increase* * From PatentlyO
8 Most Common Reasons for Filing a Reissue Claims are too narrow or too broad; Disclosure contains inaccuracies; Applicant failed to or incorrectly claimed foreign priority; and Applicant failed to make reference to or incorrectly made reference to prior copending applications
9 There Must Be an Error Reissue is not available unless there was an error in the patent that renders the issued patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid
10 When Reissue Is Not Available To correct spelling, grammar, typos, editorial, or clerical errors To correct a non-substantive drawing change Failure to file a divisional
11 When Reissue Is Not Available Applicant presents one or more claims that are all narrower than the broadest claim(s), without cancellation of such broader claim(s) and The only error that is alleged is that additional claims could have been claimed (i.e. the applicant included too few claims) No recapture of material disclaimed during prosecution
12 Filing Requirements for Reissue Must include the same parts as the original application No new matter Provide a copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or reexamination certificate issued in the patent State any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was involved (e.g. interferences, reissues, reexams, or litigation) and the results of such proceedings An amendment may be submitted with the filing of a reissue (note that there are specific requirements for the way the claims, specification, and drawings must be amended in reissue. See MPEP 1453) Oath or declaration MPEP 1410
13 Oath or Declaration In addition to complying with the requirements of 1.63, the oath or declaration must state: The applicant believes the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than the patentee had the right to claim At least one error relied upon as the basis for reissue All errors being corrected arose without any deceptive intent on the part of the applicant 37 CFR 1.175; MPEP 1414
14 Oath or Declaration Inventor oath must be used for broadening reissue Assignee oath can be used for narrowing reissue or reissue not broadening the claims (i.e. inventorship change)
15 Oath or Declaration It is not sufficient to state that the application is being filed to correct errors The oath/declaration must specifically identify an error Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific language that contains the error
16 Recapture Subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the original application may include: Original claims canceled due to an amendment or a restriction requirement Claim amendment language used to overcome a reference Written arguments presented in response to an office action (similar to prosecution history estoppel)
17 Three Step Test for Recapture Determine whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims Determine whether the broader aspects of the reissued claim related to surrendered subject matter Determine whether the reissued claims were materially narrowed in other respects to avoid the recapture rule MPEP
18 Recapture A patentee may violate the rule against recapture by claiming subject matter in a reissue patent that the patentee surrendered while prosecuting a related patent application. MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2010) (emphasis added).
19 Broadening Reissue Claim 35 U.S.C. 251 prescribes a 2-year limit (from the date of the original patent grant) for filing applications for broadening reissues. Note, however, that new broadening claims can be added after the 2-year limit, as long as any intent to broaden is indicated in the reissue application within the two years from patent grant, including continuation applications.
20 Broadening Reissue Claim What is a broadening claim?: A claim that is broader in scope than each and every claim of the original patent A claim is broader if it is broader in at least one respect, even though it may be narrower in other respects If a disclaimer is filed prior to filing of a reissue the disclaimed claims are NOT part of the original patent
21 Broadening Reissue Examples of broadened claims: If the new claim contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original claims A claim that reads on something that the original claims do not If a patent owner would be able to sue any party who previously could not have been sued (e.g. original claims are all process claims and reissue for the first time includes product claims)
22 Broadening Reissue Dependent claims: If dependent claim 2 is enlarged, but independent claim 1 is not broadened claim 2 is not broadened because claim 2 must be at least as narrow as claim 1
23 Narrowing Reissue Ex parte Tanaka* In a precedential opinion, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences held that reissue is not permissible where only narrower claims are added in a reissue application as a hedge against invalidity of the original claims * Decided Dec. 9, 2009
24 Ex parte Tanaka The Board concluded that reissue is not available to add narrower claims when issued claims remain in the application: The Appellant attempts to have it both ways, by seeking to add narrower claims to the original patent without complying with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 C.F.R (a)(1), to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent. Section 251, however, requires that for the Director to reissue a patent, the patent must be deemed to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. The reissue statute may be remedial in nature, Altenpohl, 500 F.2d at 1156, but it is not as broad in its plain wording as to allow a patentee to simply re-prosecute an otherwise operative and valid patent. (Ex parte Tanaka, p. 20.)
25 Be Sure To: Claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in a foreign country under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) (d) in the reissue even though it was already done in the original patent. MPEP 1417 Call to the attention of the Office any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was involved and the result of the proceeding. 37 CFR 1.178; MPEP 1418
26 Remember that: Reissue files are open to the public and the notice of filing reissue is announced in the Official Gazette. MPEP 1430 Examination of reissue application proceeds in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional. MPEP 1430 Reissues are to be acted on by the examiner before other applications, i.e. special. MPEP 1430 A protest pursuant to 37 CFR may be filed throughout the pendency of a reissue application, prior to the mailing of the notice of allowance The Examiner can issue a restriction requirement where the added claims are directed to an invention that is separate and distinct from the invention defined by the original claims But, the Examiner is not permitted to require restriction among original claims of the patent
27 Concurrent Proceedings If a reissue and an ex parte or an inter partes reexamination are pending concurrently, a decision will normally be made to merge the two proceedings or to suspend one of the two. If the original patent is involved in an interference, the Examiner must consult the administrative judge in charge of the interference before taking any action on the reissue MPEP
28 Reissue for Design Patents Reissue is available for design patents A design patent, however, cannot be converted to a utility patent via reissue
29 Effect of Reissue The reissued patent will be viewed as if the original patent had been originally granted in the amended form provided by the reissue. There are 2 distinct defenses to patent infringement under the doctrine of intervening rights: Absolute intervening rights are available for a party that prior to the grant of a reissue, made, purchased, offered to sell, or used within the United States, anything patented by the reissued patent, and equitable intervening rights where substantial preparation was made before the grant of the reissue. 35 U.S.C. 252; MPEP 1460
30 Surrender of Original Patent The application for reissue of a patent shall constitute an offer to surrender that patent, and the surrender shall take effect upon reissue of the patent. Until a reissue application is granted, the original patent shall remain in effect. 37 CFR 1.178
31 Surrender of Original Patent In a recent District Court case, it was held that where there is only a single reissue patent, surrender and reissuance go hand-in-hand, and the original patent is invalid after the date of reissue, but where there are multiple reissue applications, surrender is only required after the PTO issues the final reissue patent. Pfizer v. Apotex, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2010)
32 Reissue to Provoke an Interference A reissue application can be used to provoke an interference if the reissue application: adds copied claims which are not present in the original patent; amends claims to correspond to those of the patent or application with which an interference is sought; or contains at least one error (not directed to provoking an interference) appropriate for the reissue... MPEP
33 Reissue to Provoke an Interference In the case of the first two options from the previous slide, the reissue oath/declaration must assert that the applicant erred in failing to include claims of the proper scope to provoke an interference in the original patent application The issue date of the patent, or the publication date of the application publication with which an interference is sought must be less than 1 year prior to the presentation of the copied or amended claims in the reissue application; and As stated earlier, if the reissue application includes broadened claims, the reissue application must be filed within two years from the issue date of the original patent
34 Reissue to Provoke an Interference The patentee, of course, must include in the reissue application an appropriate 35 U.S.C. 251 error. A reissue cannot be based solely on the error of the Office to declare an interference or to suggest copying claims for the purpose of establishing an interference
35 Reissue v. Reexam Reissue Patent owner can correct errors in U.S. patents Reexam Anyone may test the validity of a U.S. patent (neither affects the original patent until either reissue patent is granted or a reexamination certificate is issued)
36 Reissue v. Reexam Reissue allows for: Paid extensions of time Requests for continued examination Continuations None of the above are available in reexams
37 Reissue v. Reexam Reexam Cannot correct errors in the specification Limited to questions of validity that pertain to other patents or printed publications Can be filed any time during the period of enforceability of the patent
38 Why Reissue May Be Something to Consider Consider filing a reissue where the issued patent contains an error with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 or 101 Want valid patents of broadest possible scope Doctrine of equivalents is less and less effective
39 Practice Tips Stay in touch with the client through the patent process to make sure claims encompass the most important features of the invention and that the wrong embodiments are not played up or that new ideas are incorporated Prior to patent grant: consult with marketing or sales departments to see if competitors are trying to design around the invention Consult with product development and manufacturing departments to see if any new problems have developed and revise the application to reflect these developments
40 Practice Tips Before issue always consider filing a continuation or continuation-in-part there are always alternate ways of claiming an invention Add the two year date following patent grant to your docket in case you want to file a broadening reissue
41 THANK YOU! Questions?
Patent Reissue: Benefits, Limitations and Strategies Leveraging the Reissue Process to Correct Defects and Protect IP Rights
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Reissue: Benefits, Limitations and Strategies Leveraging the Reissue Process to Correct Defects and Protect IP Rights TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2011
More informationPaper 21 Tel: Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EIZO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BARCO N.V., Patent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALSCHULER Vincent K. Yip (No. ) vyip@agsk.com Terry D. Garnett (No. ) tgarnett@agsk.com Peter J. Wied (No. ) pwied@agsk.com Maxwell A. Fox (No. 000) mfox@agsk.com The Water Garden 0 th Street Fourth Floor,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNITED VIDEO PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, AND TV GUIDE ONLINE, LLC, AND TV GUIDE ONLINE, INC.,
More informationPaper Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571.272.7822 Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS INC., Petitioner, v. JOHN L. BERMAN,
More informationPaper Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD STRYKER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA,
More informationCovered Business Method Patent Review United States Patent No. 5,191,573 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inventor: Hair Attorney Docket No.: United States Patent No.: 5,191,573 104677-5005-801 Formerly Application No.: 586,391 Customer No. 28120 Issue Date:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LYDALL THERMAL/ACOUSTICAL, INC., LYDALL THERMAL/ACOUSTICAL SALES, LLC, and LYDALL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AT&T MOBILITY LLC AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS Petitioners v. SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2015-
More informationCase 1:10-cv LFG-RLP Document 1 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:10-cv-00433-LFG-RLP Document 1 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. No. 1:10-cv-00433 MAJOR
More informationFord v. Panasonic Corp
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-1-2008 Ford v. Panasonic Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2513 Follow this and
More informationPaper Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HOPKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and THE COAST DISTRIBUTION
More informationPaper Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 35 571-272-7822 Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, Petitioner, v. INTERTAINER, INC., Patent Owner.
More informationPaper Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC, Petitioner, v.
More informationPATENT LAW. Randy Canis
PATENT LAW Randy Canis CLASS 8 Claims 1 Claims (Chapter 9) Claims define the invention described in a patent or patent application Example: A method of electronically distributing a class via distance
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner
Paper No. Filed: Sepetember 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner v. SCRIPT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC Patent
More informationPaper No Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 30 571.272.7822 Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,
More informationSHEPARD S CITATIONS. How to. Shepardize. Your guide to legal research using. Shepard s. Citations: in print. It s how you know
SHEPARD S CITATIONS How to Shepardize Your guide to legal research using Shepard s Citations: in print It s how you know How to Shepardize Using Shepard s in Print Section 3 Using Shepard s in Print Differences
More informationPaper 7 Tel: Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC Patent Owner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC Patent Owner Case: IPR2015-00322 Patent 6,784,879 PETITION FOR
More informationCommissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) EX PARTE PAULIEN F. STRIJLAND AND DAVID SCHROIT Appeal No. 92-0623 April 2, 1992 *1 HEARD: January 31, 1992 Application for Design
More informationThis Chapter does not apply to applications and decisions on, development on land reserved in corridor maps.
1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600
More informationAdditional Approaches: Using Design Rights to Protect Your Technology in Japan. Discover IP Japan Conference 2018 Session 4
Additional Approaches: Using Design Rights to Protect Your Technology in Japan Discover IP Japan Conference 2018 Session 4 Speakers Makoto Onda ONDA TECHNO Intl. Patent Attys. Yukei Mizuno CoTech International
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1052 GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC. and STARSIGHT TELECAST, INC., v. Appellants, INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, and Appellee, SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
CORRECTED: OCTOBER 16, 2003 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1163 RESQNET.COM, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LANSA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Jeffrey I. Kaplan, Kaplan & Gilman,
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387
Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB Washington, D.C. 20554 3060-1105 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 DTV TRANSITION STATUS REPORT GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS A. FCC Form 387 is to be used by all licensees/permittees
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inventor: Hair Attorney Docket No.: United States Patent No.: 5,966,440 104677-5005-804 Formerly Application No.: 08/471,964 Customer No. 28120 Issue Date:
More informationPaper Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 571-272-7822 Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD XACTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL
More informationFOR PUBLIC VIEWING ONLY INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 DTV TRANSITION STATUS REPORT. All previous editions obsolete. transition. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB Washington, D.C. 20554 3060-1105 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 DTV TRANSITION STATUS REPORT GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS transition. A. FCC Form 387 must be filed no
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner v. COLE KEPRO INTERNATIONAL, LLC Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 6,860,814 Filing Date: September
More informationPaper No Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 26 571-272-7822 Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, Petitioner, v. ELBRUS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, IPR LICENSING, INC., Appellants
More informationPaper: Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 11 571-272-7822 Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARDAGH GLASS INC., Petitioner, v. CULCHROME, LLC, Patent
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD., Petitioner v. BING XU PRECISION CO., LTD., Patent Owner CASE: Unassigned Patent
More informationPaper No. 60 Tel: Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 60 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM IVHS INC., Petitioner, v. NEOLOGY,
More informationCOMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date:
More informationPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292 Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Petitioner v. DIGITAL
More informationCase 2:16-cv MRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01594-MRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MINELAB ELECTRONICS PTY LTD, v. Plaintiff, XP METAL DETECTORS
More informationPatent Litigations that Shaped Their Industry
Patent Litigations that Shaped Their Industry Carl A. Giordano 845.268.1806 cagiordano@ieee.org Agenda What is Patentable Conditions for Patents Inventions that Created Industries Power Communications
More informationPaper No Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 57 571-272-7822 Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC, Petitioner,
More informationCOMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
More informationPaper 91 Tel: Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 91 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SHURE INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. CLEARONE, INC.,
More informationPaper Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION Petitioner, v. WI-LAN USA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:14-cv-07891-MLC-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1 Patrick J. Cerillo, Esq. Patrick J. Cerillo, LLC 4 Walter Foran Blvd., Suite 402 Flemington, NJ 08822 Attorney ID No: 01481-1980
More informationPaper Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREST AUDIO, INC.,
More informationRegulation No. 6 Peer Review
Regulation No. 6 Peer Review Effective May 10, 2018 Copyright 2018 Appraisal Institute. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ITRON, INC., Petitioner v. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner Case: IPR2015- U.S. Patent No. 6,289,453 PETITION
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D. ALTHOFF Appeal 2009-001843 Technology Center 2800 Decided: October 23,
More informationDiscussion Of Industrial Design Protection Practice In Governmental Agencies And Courts
University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 19 Issue 1 Number 1 2 Fall 1989/Winter 1990 Article 29 1989 Discussion Of Industrial Design Protection Practice In Governmental Agencies And Courts Follow this
More informationJoseph N. Hosteny, Arthur A. Gasey, William W. Flachsbart, Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, Chicago, Illinois, for the plaintiff.
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. Jack BEERY, Plaintiff. v. THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC, Defendant. THOMSON LICENSING SA, Plaintiff. v. Jack BEERY, Defendant. No. 3:00CV327,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:17-cv-00890-ELR Document 1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 58 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SONY CORPORATION and SONY ELECTRONICS INC., v. Plaintiffs,
More informationPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 Paper No. 1. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner, BISCOTTI INC.
Paper No. 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner, v. BISCOTTI INC. Patent Owner Title: Patent No. 8,144,182 Issued: March
More informationPaper Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 571-272-7822 Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. ROVI
More informationPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Petitioner v. DIGITAL
More informationCharles T. Armstrong, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, McLean, VA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. NEC CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. Defendants. Hyundai Electronics
More informationCLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER I. BACKGROUND
United States District Court, N.D. California. XILINX, INC, Plaintiff. v. ALTERA CORPORATION, Defendant. ALTERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. XILINX, INC, Defendant. No. 93-20409 SW, 96-20922 SW July 30,
More informationPaper No Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 55 571.272.7822 Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,
More informationPaper Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 571-272-7822 Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MINDGEEK, S.A.R.L., MINDGEEK USA, INC., and PLAYBOY
More informationFCC 396. BROADCAST EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM REPORT (To be filed with broadcast license renewal application)
Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC 396 Approved by OMB 3060-0113 (March 2003) BROADCAST EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM REPORT (To be filed with broadcast license renewal
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASIMO CORPORATION, Petitioner. MINDRAY DS USA, INC.
Filed: May 20, 2015 Filed on behalf of: MASIMO CORPORATION By: Irfan A. Lateef Brenton R. Babcock Jarom D. Kesler KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Ph.: (949)
More informationCOMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 6,418,556 Filing Date:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 43 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1561, -1562, -1594 SUPERGUIDE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC., DIRECTV, INC., DIRECTV OPERATIONS, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, KONAMI DIGIT AL ENTERTAINMENT ) INC., HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, ) INC. and ELECTRONIC
More informationPaper Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREST AUDIO, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS AT&T MOBILITY LLC Petitioners v. SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2015-00364
More informationCOMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,006,263 Filing Date:
More information47 USC 534. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION SUBCHAPTER V-A - CABLE COMMUNICATIONS Part II - Use of Cable Channels and Cable Ownership Restrictions 534.
More informationPaper: Entered: May 22, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 7 571-272-7822 Entered: May 22, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC., Petitioner,
More informationPAPER: FD4 MARKS AWARD : 61. The skilled person is familiar with insect traps and is likely a designer or manufacturer of insect traps.
PAPER: FD4 MARKS AWARD : 61 Construction The skilled person is familiar with insect traps and is likely a designer or manufacturer of insect traps. What would such a skilled person understand the claims
More informationPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Petitioner v. DIGITAL
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner,
Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper 11 Date Entered: September 13, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA INNOVATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner,
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015-00309 Patent U.S. 6,906,981 PETITION
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. SPORTVISION, INC, Plaintiff. v. SPORTSMEDIA TECHNOLOGY CORP, Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. SPORTVISION, INC, Plaintiff. v. SPORTSMEDIA TECHNOLOGY CORP, Defendant. No. C 04-03115 JW Feb. 17, 2006. Larry E. Vierra, Burt Magen, Vierra
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, TV WORKS, LLC, and COMCAST MO GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-859 SPRINT
More informationCase 3:16-cv K Document 36 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID 233
Case 3:16-cv-00382-K Document 36 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID 233 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHN BERMAN, v. Plaintiff, DIRECTV, LLC and
More informationThe Jon Vickers Film Scoring Award 2017/2019 Entry Form and Agreement
The Jon Vickers Film Scoring Award 2017/2019 Entry Form and Agreement Name (print): Current Address: Phone Number: Email Address: Date of Entry: The deadline for entries is May 1, 2017. All entries must
More informationPaper Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 571-272-7822 Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. ROVI
More informationCase5:14-cv HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RED PINE POINT LLC, v. Plaintiff, AMAZON.COM, INC. AND
More informationPaper Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DEXCOWIN GLOBAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIBEX, INC., Patent
More informationPaper 31 Tel: Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 31 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OPTICAL DEVICES,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner,
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015-00311 Patent U.S. 6,906,981 PETITION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1358 ERBE ELEKTROMEDIZIN GMBH and ERBE USA, INC., v. Appellants, INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, and Appellee. CANADY TECHNOLOGY, LLC and CANADY
More informationPaper Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 571-272-7822 Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent
More informationCase 1:18-cv RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 1:18-cv-10238-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TVnGO Ltd. (BVI), Plaintiff, Civil Case No.: 18-cv-10238 v.
More informationADVANCED PATENT ISSUES AND ACCELERATED EXAMINATION. Presented by: Theodore Wood
ADVANCED PATENT ISSUES AND ACCELERATED EXAMINATION Presented by: Theodore Wood Overview 2 Quick Review of Claim Basics Preparing for Claim Drafting Claim Drafting Practicing the Art (one perspective) Prioritized
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 15-1072 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 04/27/2015 Appeal No. 2015-1072 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HARMONIC INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Patent Owner-Appellee,
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on ) WC Docket No. 13-307 Petition of Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1561, -1562, -1594 SUPERGUIDE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC., DIRECTV, INC., DIRECTV OPERATIONS, INC., and HUGHES
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, INC. and KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT INC., Petitioners v. PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION,
More informationJournal of Japan Academy of Midwifery Instructions for Authors submitting English manuscripts
Journal of Japan Academy of Midwifery Instructions for Authors submitting English manuscripts 1. Submission qualification Manuscripts should publish new findings of midwifery studies, and the authors must
More informationSlashes and USPTO S-Signatures
Slashes and USPTO S-Signatures Robert J. Rose 1 It makes no difference whether [the telegraph] operator writes with a steel pen an inch long attached to an ordinary penholder, or whether his pen be a copper
More informationUsing Broadest Reasonable Interpretation to Your Advantage in Patent Prosecution
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation to Your Advantage in Patent Prosecution Establishing Scope of Claims, Preserving Enforceability THURSDAY,
More informationRules and Policies WRBB 104.9FM. Fall 2018 (Last Updated 5/2018)
Rules and Policies of WRBB 104.9FM Fall 2018 (Last Updated 5/2018) These Rules and Policies have been developed and adopted to create a safe, stable, and secure environment that nurtures and fuels the
More informationResolution Calling on the FCC to Facilitate the DTV Transition through Additional Consumer Education Efforts
Resolution Calling on the FCC to Facilitate the DTV Transition through Additional Consumer Education Efforts WHEREAS, Congress has established February 17, 2009, as the hard deadline for the end of full-power
More informationCase 1:10-cv CM-GWG Document 156 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of 30
Case 1:10-cv-04119-CM-GWG Document 156 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MEDIEN PATENT VERWALTUNG AG, Plaintiff, -against- 10 Civ. 4119 (CM)(GWG) WARNER
More informationEditorial Policy. 1. Purpose and scope. 2. General submission rules
Editorial Policy 1. Purpose and scope Central European Journal of Engineering (CEJE) is a peer-reviewed, quarterly published journal devoted to the publication of research results in the following areas
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1303 APEX INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, RARITAN COMPUTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. James D. Berquist, Nixon & Vanderhye P.C., of Arlington, Virginia,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, 1 Patent Owner.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, 1 Patent Owner. Case IPR2016-00212 2 U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
More information