Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
|
|
- Paulina Waters
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY and 3M COMPANY, vs. ENVISIONWARE, INC., Plaintiffs, Civil No. 09-cv ADM-FLN JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Defendant. In accordance with the Court's Pretrial Schedule dated January 24, 2010, the parties file this Joint Claim Construction Statement ("Statement") of certain, previously-identified claim terms, phrases, or clauses of U.S. Patent 6,857,568, U.S. Patent 6,232,870, and U.S. Patent 6,486,780. The Statement identifies the claim terms, phrases, or clauses on which the parties were unable to agree on a construction and provides a proposed construction by each of the parties. For each of the disputed claim terms, phrases, or clauses, the Statement further identifies references from the specification and/or prosecution history ("Intrinsic ") and any known extrinsic evidence on which either party may rely either to support its proposed construction or to oppose the other party's construction. Each party reserves the right to rely on any Intrinsic or extrinsic evidence cited by the opposing party in this Statement. The parties believe that a claim construction hearing will be necessary to more fully present the parties respective positions and will assist the Court for purposes of resolving the disputed claim terms and anticipate that the claim construction hearing will require approximately one day. The parties propose that the claim construction hearing is conducted in a
2 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 15 term-by-term fashion that allows each side to address each disputed claim term before moving on to a different claim term. As to the claim construction briefing procedure, the parties propose that they simultaneously file and serve their respective opening and responsive claim construction briefs. Each side's total briefing (opening and response briefs combined) shall not exceed 12,000 words per local rule 7.1(d). The parties differ on the proposed briefing schedule. 3M proposes that the parties simultaneously file and serve their respective opening briefs on August 27, M proposes each of the parties will then have 21 days to file and serve a response brief (September 17, 2010). 3M proposes that, according to paragraph D(5) of the Court's Pretrial Schedule, a hearing on claim construction shall be held on or before October 1, EnvisionWare proposes the Court reserve setting a briefing schedule until after the Court has ruled on EnvisionWare's Motion for Stay Pending Reexamination, which EnvisionWare will be filing this Monday, August 2, I. Terms On Which The Parties Do Not Agree A. Disputed Claim Terms from U.S. Patent 6,857,568 Each party's proposed claim construction for each of the disputed phrases (and the independent and dependent claims in which these phrases are found) is identified below, followed by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence the party intends to rely on in support of its proposed construction or to oppose the other party's proposed construction. 1. "controller" as used in claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 22 3M's Proposed Construction and 3M contends that no construction is "a device that controls the operation of the 2
3 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 15 required for the term controller. 3M proposes that the phrase controller carries its plain and ordinary meaning. In the alternative, if the Court determines that a construction of controller is necessary, 3M proposes that the term controller be construed as: a device that receives, stores, processes, and/or provides information to various devices. 568 Patent: Abstract Summary of the Invention Fig. 3 Cl. 7:29-65 Cl. 8:58-9:8 Cl. 13:7-47 Cl. 15:21-44 Cl. 18:47-19:3 Cl. 22:9-51 Cl. 23:38-24:12 Cl. 32:33-46 Claims 1, 2, 3, 6-17, and 22 recited elements of the self-service library terminal" '568 Patent: Abstract Cl. 2:14-4:5 Cl. 7:29-67 Cl. 8:1-33:9 Cl. 33:26-59 Cl. 33:63-34:8 Cl. 34:31-38:48 FIGS "remind" as used in claims 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15 3M's Proposed Construction and 3M contends that no construction is required for the term remind. 3M proposes that the term remind carries its plain and ordinary meaning. In the alternative, if the Court determines that a construction of remind is necessary, 3M proposes that the term remind be construed as: inform or alert 568 Patent: "always alert a borrower to the recited information" '568 Patent: Cl. 3:10-19 Cl. 8:1-33:9 Cl. 33:63-34:8 Cl. 34:31-38:48. '568 Patent Prosecution History: 3
4 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 4 of 15 Summary of the Invention Cl. 3:11-18 Cl. 34:5-9 Claims: 6-12, Patent Prosecution History: Application 09/713,444 May 5, 2003 Amendment April 13, 2004 Amendment The Random House Dictionary, 2d Ed., 1987 (remind) ( to cause (a person) to remember; cause (a person) to think (of someone or something) ). May 5, 2003 Amendment October 15, 2003 Amendment April 13, 2004 Amendment May 5, 2003 Amendment The Random House Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged, 1987 (remind) ("to cause (a person) to remember; cause (a person) to think (of someone or something): Remind me to phone him tomorrow. That woman reminds me of my mother."). 3. "so that the loan transactions can be later transferred to the circulation system" as used in claims 9, 16, and 22 3M's Proposed Construction and 3M contends that no construction is required for the phrase so that the loan transactions can be later transferred to the circulation system. 3M proposes that the phrase so that the loan transactions can be later transferred to the circulation system carries its plain and ordinary meaning. "to transfer data to the circulation system over the link when the link is re-established" '568 Patent: Cl. 1:63-2:9 Cl. 3:19-33 Cl. 7:43-65 Cl. 8:1-33:9 Cl. 34:31-38:48. 4 '568 Patent Prosecution History: May 5, 2003 Amendment October 15, 2003 Amendment April 13, 2004 Amendment Compl. [Docket No. 1] 3M's Ans. to EnvisionWare's 1st. Set of Interrogs.
5 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 5 of 15 B. Disputed Claim Terms from U.S. Patent 6,232,870 Each party's proposed claim construction for each of the disputed phrases (and the independent and dependent claims in which these phrases are found) is identified below, followed by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence the party intends to rely on in support of its proposed construction or to oppose the other party's proposed construction. 1. "inputting information" as used in claims 1, 2, and 4 3M's Proposed Construction and entering, loading, or transferring information 870 Patent: Fig. 14 Cl. 15:11-17 Cl. 15:32-37 Cl. 15:59-62 Cl. 16:55-64 Cl. 17:17-26 Cl. 17:40-43 Claims 1, 3, 6, 13, and 18 "entering data via a user interface of the device, but not transferring (e.g., downloading or uploading) data from another computer" '870 Patent: Cl. 11:17-18:46 Cl. 18:55-20:54. The Random House Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged, 1987 (input) ("Computers. to enter (data) into a computer for processing"). 870 Patent Prosecution History: Application No. 09/134,686 Application No. 09/344,758 Application No. 09/368,826 November 1, 2000 Amendment Webster s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed., 1994 (input) ( The act of putting in; data or programs entered to be entered into a computer for processing; to feed (information) 5
6 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 6 of 15 into a computer ); McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 5th Ed., 1994 (input) ( The information that is delivered to a data-processing device from the external world, the process of delivering this data, or the equipment that performs this process ); The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Ed., 1992 (input) ( Comp. Sci. Information put into a data processing system ) 2. "an algorithm" as used in claim 6 3M's Proposed Construction and data or a list corresponding to an organizational system or a method of sorting 870 Patent: Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Cl. 16:36-54 Cl. 17:21-26 Claim Patent Prosecution History: Application No. 09/134,686 Application No. 09/344,758 Application No. 09/368,826 "a set of rules" '870 Patent: Cl. 8:5-14 Cl. 11:17-18:46 Cl. 18:55-20:54 Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2d College ed., 1982 (algorithm) ("any special method of solving a certain kind of problem; specif., the repetitive calculations used in finding the greatest common divisor of two numbers (call in full Euclid s algorithm)"). 3. "received signals" as used in claims 1, 2, and 4 3M's Proposed Construction and 3M contends that no construction is required for the phrase received signals. 3M proposes that the phrase received signals carries its plain and ordinary meaning. "an electrical quantity or effect that can be varied in such a way as to convey information" '870 Patent: 6
7 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 7 of 15 Cl. 5:19-8:14 Cl. 18:55-20: "obtaining" as used in claims 13, 14, and 15 The Random House Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged, 1987 (signal) ("an electrical quantity or effect, as current, voltage, or electromagnetic waves, that can be varied in such a way as to convey information") Testimony from William R. Bandy, Ph.D. 3M's Proposed Construction and identifying, selecting, or acquiring an item in a manner to facilitate the input of information to the RFID device as to that item 870 Patent: Fig. 13 Cl. 17:61-18:6 Claim Patent Prosecution History: Application No. 09/134,686 Application No. 09/344,758 Application No. 09/368,826 November 1, 2000 Amendment "gathering for interrogation" '870 Patent: Cl. 11:17-18:46 Cl. 18:55-20:54. The Random House Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged, 1987 (obtain) ("to come into possession of; get, acquire, or procure, as through an effort or by a request: to obtain permission; to obtain a better income.") The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Ed., 1992 (obtain) ( To succeed in gaining possession of; acquire ); Webster s II New College Dictionary, 1995 (obtain) ( To gain possession of, esp. by intention or endeavor ) 7
8 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 8 of "input information to the RFID device as to that item" as used in claims 13, 14, and 15 3M's Proposed Construction and enter information to the RFID device as to the item 870 Patent: Fig. 13 Cl. 17:61-18:6 Claims 13, 14, and Patent Prosecution History: Application No. 09/134,686 Application No. 09/344,758 Application No. 09/368,826 November 1, 2000 Amendment "input to the RFID device custom information observed by a user regarding the item scanned by the RFID device" '870 Patent: Cl. 11:17-18:46 Cl. 18:55-20:54. '870 Patent Prosecution History: November 1, 2000 Amendment C. Disputed Claim Terms from U.S. Patent 6,486,780 Each party's proposed claim construction for each of the disputed phrases (and the independent and dependent claims in which these phrases are found) is identified below, followed by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence the party intends to rely on in support of its proposed construction or to oppose the other party's proposed construction. 1. "integrated unit" as used in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 17 3M's Proposed Construction and a unit wherein the recited component parts are or can be combined into a unified structure 780 Patent: "recited components directly connected to a single housing" '780 Patent: Cl. 11:17-18:57 8
9 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 9 of 15 Cl. 15:42-16:7 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Claims 1, 7, 17, and Patent Prosecution History: Cl. 18:66-20:54 FIGS. 15, 16. '780 Patent Prosecution History: February 26, 2001 Office Action March 29, 2001 Amendment September 14, 2001 Notice of Allowance Application No. 09/134,686 Application No. 09/344,758 Application No. 09/368,826 Application No. 09/619,220 March 29, 2001 Amendment April 25, 2001 Notice of Allowability September 12, 2001 Notice of Allowability Webster s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed., 1994 (integrate) ( To put or bring (parts) together into a whole; unify ); The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Ed., 1992 (integrate) ( To make into a whole; unify; To join with something else; unite ); Webster s II New College Dictionary, 1995 (integrate) ( To make into a whole by bringing all parts together: unify; To join with something else ) 2. "substantially simultaneously" as used in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 17 3M's Proposed Construction and in immediate or nearly immediate succession in time 780 Patent: Background of the Invention Cl. 8:3-13 Cl. 13:25-36 Cl. 5:36-53 Cl. 15:62-16:3 Claims 1 and 17 9 "in substantially overlapping durations" '780 Patent: Cl. 1:25-3:22 Cl. 5:39-45 Cl. 8:3-13 Cl. 11:17-18:57 Cl. 18:66-20:54
10 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 10 of Patent Prosecution History: Application No. 09/134,686 Application No. 09/344,758 Application No. 09/368,826 Application No. 09/619,220 March 29, 2001 Amendment September 12, 2001 Notice of Allowability U.S. Patent No. 5,940,006 to MacLellan et al. EP to AT&T Corp U.S. Patent No. 5,952,922 to Shober. Testimony of William R. Bandy, Ph.D. Webster s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed., 1994 (simultaneous) ( Occurring, done, existing, etc. together or at the same time ); The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Ed., 1992 (simultaneous) ( Happening, existing, or done at the same time ); Webster s II New College Dictionary, 1995 (simultaneous) ( Occurring, existing, or carried out at the same time ). 3. "a data transfer system for transferring data from the RFID device to a separate database" as used in claims 3, 4, 5, and 6 3M's Proposed Construction and 3M contends that no construction is required for the phrase a data transfer system for transferring data from the RFID device to a separate database. 3M proposes that the phrase a data transfer system for transferring data from the RFID device to a separate database carries its plain and ordinary meaning. "a system that transfers data directly to a comprehensive collection of related data organized for convenient access" '780 Patent: Cl. 11:17-18:57 Cl. 18:66-20:54 The Random House Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged, 1987 (database) ("1. a comprehensive collection of related data organized for convenient access, generally in a computer. 2. See data bank.") 10
11 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 11 of "a trigger for intermittent activation of the device" as used in claim 17 3M's Proposed Construction and 3M contends that no construction is required for the phrase a trigger for intermittent activation of the device. 3M proposes that the phrase a trigger for intermittent activation of the device carries its plain and ordinary meaning. properly construed as means plus function under 35 U.S.C alternatively construed as: "a trigger" a projecting tongue or lever "intermittent activation of the device" placing the device into a separate, powersaving mode of operation as opposed to a continuous mode of operation '780 Patent: Cl. 1:25-3:22 Cl. 11:17-18:57 Cl. 18:66-20:54 FIGS. 15, 16. '780 Patent Prosecution History: Original Application March 29, 2001 Amendment The Random House Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged, 1987 (intermittent) ("alternately functioning and not functioning or alternately functioning properly or improperly") U.S. Patent No. 5,952,922 to Shober U.S. Patent No. 6,097,301 to Tuttle U.S. Patent No. 6,150,948 to Watkins. Testimony of William R. Bandy, Ph.D. 11
12 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 12 of 15 II. Witnesses A. EnvisionWare's Position EnvisionWare intends to call William R. Bandy, Ph.D. at the claim construction hearing to provide testimony regarding the following topics. First, Dr. Bandy will testify that, at the time of the earliest effective filing date of the '780 patent, at least two ways existed to read information from multiple RFID tags: (i) simultaneously e.g., using multiple channels or using spread-spectrum technology; or (ii) sequentially e.g., using time slots. This testimony will be relevant to the construction of the term "substantially simultaneously" as recited in claims 1 and 17 of the '780 patent. Second, Dr. Bandy will testify that, at the time of the earliest effective filing date of the '780 patent, the industry was researching and implementing RFID readers having at least two modes of operation: (i) a fully powered mode; and (ii) an intermittent mode of operation in which reader power was conserved. This testimony will be relevant to the construction of the term "intermittent activation of the device" as recited in claims 11 and 17 of the '780 patent. Third, Dr. Bandy will opine as to how a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art(s) would interpret the term "received signals" as recited in claim 1 of the '870 patent. Additionally, Dr. Bandy will opine as to the level of skill in the relevant art as of the earliest effective filing date of the '870, '780, and '568 patents. Regarding 3M's objection to EnvisionWare's reliance on testimony of expert witnesses, EnvisionWare disputes and disagrees with 3M's characterizations. EnvisionWare has relied on the proposals and representations of 3M's counsel, both during our meet-and-confer telephone calls and in explicit written correspondence, that the parties' positions with respect to proposed terms, proposed constructions, and proposed sources of extrinsic evidence were preliminary and 12
13 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 13 of 15 may evolve until the August 1, 2010, deadline for submitting the Joint Claim Construction to the Court. Moreover, 3M too only notified EnvisionWare of substantial changes to 3M's own positions on July 28, 2010 and July 30, 2010, only hours before the filing of this Joint Claim Construction Statement. 3M's substantial changes to its own positions belie its objection and, in fact, demonstrate an acknowledgement of the agreement between the parties. In view of counsel for 3M's representations and 3M's own revised positions, EnvisionWare believes any objection to EnvisionWare's revised positions is inappropriate. B. 3M's Position 3M objects to the inclusion by EnvisionWare of any evidence in the form of witness testimony. Section D(3) of the Pretrial Schedule requires that on or before July 1, 2010 the parties provide preliminary identification of extrinsic evidence, including without limitation... testimony of percipient and expert witnesses that they contend support their respective claim constructions. (Dkt. 23). Furthermore, the Pretrial Schedule requires that at the same time the parties shall also provide a brief description of the substance of that witness proposed testimony. (Id.) EnvisionWare s Preliminary Claim Construction and Preliminary Identification of Extrinsic served on July 1, 2010 did not identify any witnesses, let alone provide a brief description of the substance of that witness proposed testimony. The first time 3M was made aware of EnvisionWare s intent to rely on witness testimony was July 30, 2010 only hours before the filing of this Joint Claim Construction Statement. Because EnvisionWare failed to comply with the Court s Pretrial Schedule and concealed its intent to rely on witness testimony until hours before filing this Joint Claim Construction Statement, 3M requests that this Court bar EnvisionWare from submitting any witness testimony 13
14 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 14 of 15 either at the Claim Construction Hearing or otherwise. If the Court permits EnvisionWare to provide extrinsic evidence in the form of witness testimony, 3M reserves its right to provide responsive witness testimony, the subject of which will be disclosed in 3M s opening Claim Construction brief. Dated: July 30, 2010 s/ Andrew F. Johnson David J. F. Gross (No ) James W. Poradek (No ) Theodore M. Budd (No ) Christopher J. Burrell (No ) Andrew F. Johnson (No ) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota Telephone: (612) Fax: (612) dgross@faegre.com; jporadek@faegre.com; tbudd@faegre.com; cburrell@faegre.com; ajohnson@faegre.com Kevin H. Rhodes (No ) Peter L. Olson (No ) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY 3M Center P.O. Box Saint Paul, MN Telephone: (651) Fax: (651) krhodes@mmm.com; plolson4@mmm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY AND 3M COMPANY 14
15 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 15 of 15 Dated: July 30, 2010 /s Nirav N. Desai Kevin D. Conneely (#192703) David D. Axtell (#314956) Ruth A. Rivard (#327591) Erik M. Drange (#344138) LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN Telephone: (612) Facsimile: (612) OF COUNSEL: H. Keeto Sabharwal (admitted pro hac vice) Nirav N. Desai (admitted pro hac vice) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC Telephone: (202) Facsimile: (202) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ENVISIONWARE, INC. Joint Claim Construction Statement (to be filed with Court).DOC 15
16 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42-1 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY and 3M COMPANY, vs. ENVISIONWARE, INC., Plaintiffs, Civil No. 09-cv ADM-FLN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant. I hereby certify that on July 30, 2010, I caused the following document: Joint Claim Construction Statement to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through ECF, and that ECF will send an e-notice of electronic filing to the following: David D Axtell david.axtell@leonard.com,barbara.mclean@leonard.com, catherine.hortonmorin@leonard.com Theodore M Budd tbudd@faegre.com,merickson@faegre.com,couellette@faegre.com Christopher J Burrell cburrell@faegre.com Kevin D Conneely kevin.conneely@leonard.com,barbara.mclean@leonard.com, maryann.wessel@leonard.com,catherine.hortonmorin@leonard.com Nirav N Desai ndesai@skgf.com Erik M Drange erik.drange@leonard.com,lynn.miskowiec@leonard.com David J F Gross dgross@faegre.com,degan@faegre.com Andrew F Johnson ajohnson@faegre.com,sbeety@faegre.com Peter L Olson plolson4@mmm.com
17 Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42-1 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2 James W Poradek jporadek@faegre.com,dnoren@faegre.com Kevin H Rhodes krhodes@mmm.com,sconoryea@mmm.com Ruth A Rivard ruth.rivard@leonard.com,brenda.harvey@leonard.com H Keeto Sabharwal keetos@skgf.com Dated: July 30, 2010 BY: s/ Andrew F. Johnson David J. F. Gross (No ) James W. Poradek (No ) Theodore M. Budd (No ) Christopher J. Burrell (No ) Andrew F. Johnson (No ) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota Telephone: (612) Fax: (612) dgross@faegre.com; jporadek@faegre.com; tbudd@faegre.com; cburrell@faegre.com; ajohnson@faegre.com Kevin H. Rhodes (No ) Peter L. Olson (No ) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY 3M Center P.O. Box Saint Paul, MN Telephone: (651) Fax: (651) krhodes@mmm.com; plolson4@mmm.com fb.us ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY AND 3M COMPANY
FORM 4. RULE 26(f) REPORT (PATENT CASES) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FORM 4. RULE 26(f REPORT (PATENT CASES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Name of Plaintiff CIVIL FILE NO. Plaintiff, v. RULE 26(f REPORT (PATENT CASES Name of Defendant Defendant. The
More informationPaper Entered: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner, v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com AGILITY IP LAW, LLP Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park,
More informationCase 9:17-cv KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2017 Page 1 of 6
Case 9:17-cv-80495-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 9:17-CV-80495-MARRA-MATTHEWMAN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant 2016-1173 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationEdwin H. Taylor, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Sunnyvale, CA, Joseph R. Bond, Heber City, UT, for
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. INTERNATIONAL AUTOMATED SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. DIGITAL PERSONA, INC.; Microsoft Corporation; and John Does 1-20, Defendants. No. 2:06-CV-72
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DULUTH DIVISION
Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas Doc. 90 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DULUTH DIVISION VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; CAPITOL RECORDS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationCASE 0:16-cv PJS-FLN Document 18 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00358-PJS-FLN Document 18 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ERGOTRON, INC., Plaintiff, v. HUMANSCALE CORPORATION, Defendant. C.A. No.: 0:16-cv-00358-PJS-FLN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, v. Plaintiffs, CANON, INC. et al., Defendants. / TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
More informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Southern Division Brian J. Martin, Yahmi Nundley, and Katherine Cadeau, individually and on behalf Case No. 2:15-cv-12838 of all
More informationOrder RE: Claim Construction
United States District Court, C.D. California. In re KATZ INTERACTIVE CALL PROCESSING PATENT LITIGATION. This document relates to, This document relates to:. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L, Ronald
More informationFrederick S. Berretta, Boris Zelkind, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, N.D. California. GOLDEN HOUR DATA SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. HEALTH SERVICES INTEGRATION, INC, Defendant. No. C 06-7477 SI July 22, 2008. Frederick S. Berretta, Boris Zelkind,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1548, -1627 CATALINA MARKETING INTERNATIONAL,
More informationCase4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11
Case:-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com PHILIP W. MARSH, State Bar No. phil@agilityiplaw.com
More informationIf you were a borrower on a mortgage loan account held or serviced by Wells Fargo, a class action settlement may affect your rights.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-09483 If you were a borrower on a mortgage loan account held or serviced by Wells Fargo,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-tsz Document Filed /0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ARRIVALSTAR S.A. AND MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, v. Plaintiffs, CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
More informationINDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES Nelson S. Román, United States District Judge. Courtroom Deputy Clerk
July 23, 2013 INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES Nelson S. Román, United States District Judge Chambers Courtroom Deputy Clerk United States Courthouse Ms. Gina Sicora 300 Quarropas Street (914) 390-4178
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHARMAINE FRECKLETON AND THOMAS J. JUST, on behalf of themselves and : all others similarly situated, : : Plaintiff : Case No. 14-cv-0807-GLR : : CLASS
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Patent Owner Case No. Patent No. 6,125,371 PETITIONER S REQUEST
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document21 Filed06/09/14 Page1 of 12
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP David Eiseman (Bar No. ) davideiseman@quinnemanuel.com Carl G. Anderson (Bar No. ) carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com 0 California
More informationCase 1:13-cv LEK-BMK Document 81 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1299
Case 1:13-cv-00336-LEK-BMK Document 81 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1299 CADES SCHUTTE LLP PETER W. OLSON #3468-0 1000 Bishop Street, 12th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813-4216 Telephone: (808) 521-9385
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571.272.7822 Entered: August 26, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, v.
More informationCase 1:09-md LAK Document 333 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 109-md-02017-LAK Document 333 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X In re LEHMAN BROTHERS
More informationUnited States District Court, D. Minnesota.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota. FLOE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and Wayne G. Floe, Plaintiffs. v. NEWMANS' MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED, Defendant. and Newmans' Manufacturing Incorporated, Counter-Claimant.
More informationNo. A STATE OF MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT. Tony Webster, vs. Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriff s Office,
No. A16-0736 STATE OF MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT May 4, 2017 Tony Webster, Petitioner, vs. Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriff s Office, Respondents. REQUEST OF STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY LLC,
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 110 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 932 as Exhibit A. The chart in Exhibit A identifies the intrinsic and ext
Case 2:16-cv-00056-JRG-RSP Document 110 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 931 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., Plaintiff,
More informationPaper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KASPERSKY LAB, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and
More informationCase 2:17-cv RAJ Document 36 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 5
Case :-cv-00-raj Document Filed 0// Page of HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 CITY OF SEATTLE and CITY OF PORTLAND, vs. Plaintiffs, DONALD J. TRUMP,
More informationPaper 36 Tel: Entered: May 8, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 36 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 8, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SQUARE, INC., Petitioner, v. J. CARL COOPER, Patent Owner.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) This case arises out of the alleged infringement of a patent for an audio communication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA -WAY COMPUTING, INC., Plaintiff, vs. GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. :-cv-0-rcj-pal ORDER This case arises out of the alleged infringement of a patent
More informationPaper 24 Tel: Date: June 23, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24 Tel: 571-272-7822 Date: June 23, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNISONE
More informationIf you were a Jamestown distributor in North Carolina at any time since September 12, 2010, you could get a payment from a class action settlement.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA If you were a Jamestown distributor in North Carolina at any time since September 12, 2010, you could get a payment from a class
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 5:11-cv-01078-D Document 16 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, vs. Plaintiff, TGS ANADARKO LLC; and WELLS
More informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF CASS, NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF CASS, NORTH DAKOTA Sierra Corporate Design, Inc., Plaintiff, v. File No. 09-05-C-01660 David Ritz, Defendant. DEFENDANT DAVID RITZ S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
More informationU.S. District Court District of Delaware (Wilmington) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv LPS
US District Court Civil Docket as of January 14, 2014 Retrieved from the court on June 16, 2014 U.S. District Court District of Delaware (Wilmington) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-01994-LPS Todic v.
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:13-cv-00834-PEC Document 46 Filed 10/16/14 Page 1 of 20 In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-834C (E-Filed: October 16, 2014 DONALD MARTIN, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Rachel Krevans (SBN ) Market Street San Francisco, California 0- Telephone:..000 Facsimile:.. rkrevans@mofo.com Grant J. Esposito (pro hac vice) 0 West th Street
More informationThe petition to change patent term adjustment determination under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) from 153 days to a 318 days is DENIED.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. MAILED P.O. BOX 1022 SEP 13 2011 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1022 OFFICE OF PETITIONS In re Patent No. 7,855,318 Xu Issue Date: December 21, 2010
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR ORDER LIFTING STAY INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, Chapter 9 Case no. 13-53846 Debtor. Hon. Steven W. Rhodes BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION
More informationThese rules shall be known as the Local Rules for Columbia and Montour Counties, the 26 th Judicial District, and shall be cited as L.R. No.
BUSINESS OF THE COURT L.R. No. 51 TITLE AND CITATION OF RULES These rules shall be known as the Local Rules for Columbia and Montour Counties, the 26 th Judicial District, and shall be cited as L.R. No.
More informationPaper No Entered: June 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 43 571.272.7822 Entered: June 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Petitioner, v. INNOVATIVE MEMORY
More informationCase 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418 PARKERVISION, INC., vs. Plaintiff, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
More informationA federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON If you are a person residing in the United States and its territories, and received one or more text message advertisements from or on behalf
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Alycia A. Degen, SBN adegen@sidley.com Bradley J. Dugan, SBN 0 bdugan@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP West Fifth Street, Suite 000 Los Angeles, California 001 Telephone: +1 1-000 Facsimile: +1 1-00 Attorneys
More informationORDER RULING ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
United States District Court, C.D. California. DEALERTRACK, INC, Plaintiff. v. David L. HUBER, Finance Express LLC, and John Doe Dealers, Defendants. Dealertrack, Inc, Plaintiff. v. Routeone LLC, David
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1
Case 2:16-cv-01358 Document 1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, DUAL
More informationProceedings (In Chambers): Order Vacating February 6, 2009 Claim Construction Order [107]; Order on New Claim Construction;
United States District Court, C.D. California. REMOTEMDX, INC, v. SATELLITE TRACKING OF PEOPLE, LLC. No. CV 08-2899 ODW(FMOx) April 29, 2009. Gary M. Anderson, Fulwider Patton, Los Angeles, CA, for Remotemdx,
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 2:15-cv-01079 Document 1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CYPALEO LLC Plaintiff, Case No: vs. PATENT CASE ASUS COMPUTER
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553
More informationCOUNTY COURT JUDGE GIUSEPPINA MIRANDA PROCEDURES FOR DIVISION 52. (Amended May 1, 2017)
GIUSEPPINA MIRANDA COUNTY COURT JUDGE CIVIL DIVISION SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA BROWARD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 201 SE 6TH STREET, ROOM 13137 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 (954) 831-7230 COUNTY COURT
More informationRECEIVE YOUR SHARE EXCLUDE YOURSELF OBJECT GO TO THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT REGARDING UNSOLICITED FASCIMILE ADVERTISEMENTS The Court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 457
Case 2:16-cv-01096-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 457 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JOE ANDREW SALAZAR, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationA state court in Missouri authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. SUMMARY
LONG FORM NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING If you received a Fax Advertisement from Dentis USA Corporation d/b/a Dentis USA between September 16, 2012, and February 16, 2018, a class
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 21 ECF CASE INTRODUCTION
Case 1:18-cv-01756 Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
More informationCASE 0:15-cv DWF-SER Document 1 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:15-cv-03443-DWF-SER Document 1 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Willis Electric Co., Ltd., v. Plaintiff, Civil Case No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Case 1:12-cv-01118-JMS-DML Document 35 37 Filed 11/30/12 12/10/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 263 308 MARIE FRITZINGER, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida
Chad K. Alvaro Circuit Judge STATE OF FLORIDA Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida Counties of Orange and Osceola 425 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1125 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hearing Room 1100.01 / Courtroom 18
More informationPaper No Entered: October 18, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 35 571.272.7822 Entered: October 18, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC. Petitioner, v. NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES,
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-02542 Document 1 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION JOHN MORDOFF, on his own ) behalf and for all others
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. DR. MICHAEL FARM WALD and RPX CORPORATION Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DR. MICHAEL FARM WALD and RPX CORPORATION Petitioner PARKERVISION, INC. Patent Owner Case 1PR2014-00947 U.S. Patent No.
More informationA Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, ZURU LTD., v. Plaintiffs, TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00033-RWS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
CINDY RODRIGUEZ, STEVEN GIBBS, PAULA PULLUM, YOLANDA CARNEY, JACQUELINE BRINKLEY, CURTIS JOHNSON, and FRED ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION v. Plaintiffs,
More informationDockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL NORFOLK DIVISION BID FOR POSITION, LLC, Bid For Position,
Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al Doc. 88 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL NORFOLK DIVISION BID FOR POSITION, LLC, v. Bid For Position, AOL, LLC, GOOGLE INC.,
More informationCase 9:18-cv DMM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2018 Page 1 of 8
Case 9:18-cv-80118-DMM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2018 Page 1 of 8 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, NEXTERA ENERGY DUANE ARNOLD, LLC, NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC, AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK,
More informationCase 2:15-cv DN-BCW Document 111 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-00828-DN-BCW Document 111 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 8 JOHN W. HUBER, United States Attorney (#7226) JOHN K. MANGUM, Assistant United States Attorney (#2072) 185 South State Street, Suite 300
More informationCase 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2016 Page 1 of 8
Case 9:16-cv-80079-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2016 Page 1 of 8 GREENFLIGHT VENTURE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: vs. WHITEPAGES,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E. FREENY, and JAMES P. FREENY, v. Plaintiffs, FOSSIL GROUP, INC., Defendant. Case No.
More informationUNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION. Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. In the Matter of CERTAIN AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES AND POINT OF SALE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE THEREOF ORDER 15: CONSTRUING THE TERMS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement IF YOU WORKED FOR BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AS A DEDICATED SERVICE DIRECTOR, TREASURY SERVICES
More informationCase MDL No Document 76 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 5 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Case MDL No. 2666 Document 76 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 5 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR MDL No. 2666 WARMING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1539 PREDICATE LOGIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRIBUTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Christopher S. Marchese, Fish & Richardson
More informationNOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND SETTLEMENT READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALBERT VIESSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:16-cv-01026-JCC Hon. John C. Coughenour
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. LIFE360, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1732 Appeal from the United States District
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE OAK RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL PEACE ) ALLIANCE, NUCLEAR WATCH OF NEW ) MEXICO, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE ) COUNCIL, RALPH HUTCHISON, ED SULLIVAN, )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, BLOCKDOT, INC.; CAREERBUILDER, LLC.; CNET NETWORKS, INC.; DIGG, INC.;
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID SANTIAGO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. FOR THE
More informationWoods et al v. Vector Marketing Corporation Doc. 276 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Woods et al v. Vector Marketing Corporation Doc. 276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) 29229 Canwood
More informationDr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Case No.
Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case No. 0:15-cv-60716-WPD If you made a purchase at a Godiva store in the United States
More informationCase 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137
Case 1:15-cv-00110-IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Motion for Judgment on the
Appistry, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al Doc. 0 APPISTRY, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CASE NO. C- MJP v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
More informationLOCAL COURT RULES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 17A - ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. General Court of Justice-Superior Court Division. State of North Carolina
LOCAL COURT RULES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 17A - ROCKINGHAM COUNTY General Court of Justice-Superior Court Division State of North Carolina Effective January 1, 2007 CALENDARING OF CIVIL CASES Pursuant to and
More informationPaper Entered: March 26, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 71 571-272-7822 Entered: March 26, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BLOOMBERG INC.; BLOOMBERG L.P.; BLOOMBERG FINANCE L.P.;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
Eight Mile Style, LLC et al v. Apple Computer, Incorporated Doc. 160 EIGHT MILE STYLE, LLC and MARTIN AFFILIATED, LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA JOINTLY ADMINISTERED UNDER CASE NO Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC;
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Polaroid Corporation, et al., Debtors. (includes: Polaroid Holding Company; Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC; Polaroid Capital, LLC; Polaroid
More informationCase 1:13-cv JKB Document 180 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-03233-JKB Document 180 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND O. John Benisek, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al., Defendants.
More informationCase 2:13-cv RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760
Case 2:13-cv-00791-RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FREENY, ET AL. v. MURPHY OIL CORPORATION,
More informationNOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS RE: PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS RE: PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT If you purchased goods or services using a credit card from a Lowe s store in Massachusetts
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 12 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CODE REVISION COMMISION on behalf of and for the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division NICOLE P. ERAMO, v. Plaintiff, ROLLING STONE, LLC, SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY, and WENNER MEDIA, LLC, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.
Case :-cv-00-dms-wvg Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 IN RE: AMERANTH CASES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS. cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS
More informationYOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA If you purchased goods using a credit card from a Sur La Table store in California during the period of time between February
More informationCase 2:15-cv CAS-E Document 19 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:96
Case :-cv-0-cas-e Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 HAILYN J. CHEN (State Bar No. ) hailyn.chen@mto.com SARA N. TAYLOR (State Bar No. ) sara.taylor@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP South Grand
More informationCase 1:04-cv GTE-DRH Document 50 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:04-cv-00342-GTE-DRH Document 50 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICKY RAY QUEEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 04-CV-342 (FJS/DRH) INTERNATIONAL PAPER
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. LINCOLN FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiff. v. TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. LINCOLN FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiff. v. TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-1707-N Nov. 7, 2008. Scott W.
More informationPaper 8 Tel: Entered: October 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SUPERCELL OY, Petitioner, v. GREE, INC., Patent Owner.
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. Plaintiff, vs., Defendant. / ORDER SCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND NON-JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Plaintiff
More information