Document
IPR2021-01029, No. 14 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021)
Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’654 patent, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.
“To satisfy the written description requirement the disclosure of the prior application must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306 (citations omitted).
Patent Owner responds that “the narrow issue before the Board is whether the disclosure of the Parent Application reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of a liquid crystal device with a light shielding film configured to overlap with the pixel electrode which is bent in plan view.” Prelim. Resp. 18.
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the challenged claims in the ’654 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the March 4, 2009 filing date of the Parent Application.
Patent 9,310,654 B2 to be completed nearly ten months before a final written description would be due.” Prelim. Resp. 2; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 11 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative) (“[A] parallel proceeding in an advanced state implicates considerations of efficiency and fairness, which can serve as an independent reason to apply discretion to deny institution.”); NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018- 00752, Paper 8 at 19–20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential) (denying institution relying, in part, on § 314(a) because the parallel district court proceeding was scheduled to finish before the Board reached a final decision).
Cite Document
IPR2021-01029, No. 14 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2021-01028, No. 14 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021)
Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’299 patent, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.
In determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board considers the trial date in related litigation as part of an assessment of all relevant circumstances of the case, including the merits, in an effort to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.
Because the District Court Action will not address all of the claims challenged in this proceeding, and Petitioner agrees to be bound by a stipulation substantively similar to that in Sotera, we find that this factor weighs strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution.
Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Credelle, testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or a related field and at least two years of work
Patent Owner’s argument that Takahata does not disclose a protective member is inconsistent with Takahata’s characterization of heat-resistant transparent resin plate 8 and again improperly attacks the references individually, rather than as part of the combination with Maekawa that Petitioner proposes.
Cite Document
IPR2021-01028, No. 14 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Docket
9:13-cv-80567,
Florida Southern District Court
(June 4, 2013)
Donald M. Middlebrooks, presiding
Patent
Division | West Palm Beach |
Demand | Defendant |
Cause | 28:1338 Patent Infringement |
Case Type | 830 Patent |
Tags | 830 Patent, 830 Patent |
Counter Defendant | Panasonic Corporation |
Cite Docket
Zenith Electronics LLC et al v. Craig Electronics, Inc., 9:13-cv-80567 (S.D.Fla.)
+ More Snippets
Docket
12-2-15842-8 SEA,
Washington State, King County, Superior Court
(May 1, 2012)
REGINA CAHAN, RICHARD D. EADIE, STEVE G. ROSEN, presiding
Case Type | Miscellaneous, Civil (2) |
Defendant | PANASONIC CORP |
Defendant | PANASONIC CORP OF NORTH AMERICA |
Cite Docket
WASHINGTON STATE OF VS LG ELECTRONICS INC ET AL, 12-2-15842-8 SEA (Washington State, King County, Superior Court)
+ More Snippets
Docket
337-897,
United States International Trade Commission
(Sept. 3, 2013)
Dee Lord, presiding
Case Type | Sec 337 |
| Panasonic |
Cite Docket
Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 337-897 (U.S.I.T.C.)
+ More Snippets
Docket
123-02049-CVKCD,
Washington State, King County, District Court
(Nov. 9, 2012)
Case Type | Civil |
Garnishee Defendant | PANASONIC CORPORATION |
Cite Docket
CREDIT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and JOHN R ELTRINGHAM vs. RAMIRO GONZALEZ, 123-02049-CVKCD (Washington State, King County, District Court)
+ More Snippets
Docket
2:13-cv-01012,
Texas Eastern District Court
(Nov. 26, 2013)
Rodney Gilstrap,
presiding.
Patent
Cite Docket
Long Corner Consumer Electronics LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, 2:13-cv-01012 (E.D.Tex.)
+ More Snippets
Document
DANILO RODRIGUEZ v. PANASONIC CORP. OF N. AMERICA et al, 21845/2019E, 11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County Apr. 26, 2019)
Cite Document
DANILO RODRIGUEZ v. PANASONIC CORP. OF N. AMERICA et al, 21845/2019E, 11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County Apr. 26, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Docket
1:13-cv-00917,
Delaware District Court
(May 22, 2013)
Judge Leonard P. Stark,
presiding.
Patent
Cite Docket
One-Blue LLC et al v. Imation Corporation, 1:13-cv-00917 (D.Del.)
+ More Snippets
Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, 1155859 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2021)
Cite Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, 1155859 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, Proof of Service (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 20...
Cite Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, Proof of Service (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, Proof of Service (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 20...
Cite Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, Proof of Service (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, 1155540 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2021)
Cite Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, 1155540 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, 1155541 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2021)
Cite Document
Kelly M. Kope, Relator, vs. Panasonic Avionics Corp, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent., A21-0760, 1155541 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Document
Neil Alan Miller and Zenaida G. Miller -v- Florentina Roman et al, CIVSB2128144, No. 05-03-22-Copy_of_5322_minute_order (California State, San Bernardino County, Superior Court May. 3, 20...
Cite Document
Neil Alan Miller and Zenaida G. Miller -v- Florentina Roman et al, CIVSB2128144, No. 05-03-22-Copy_of_5322_minute_order (California State, San Bernardino County, Superior Court May. 3, 2022)
+ More Snippets