• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 1479-1493 of 50,000 results

14 Institution Decision Grant: Institution Decision Grant

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 Cite Document

14 Institution Decision Grant: Institution Decision Grant

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 Cite Document

Zenith Electronics LLC et al v. Craig Electronics, Inc.

Docket 9:13-cv-80567, Florida Southern District Court (June 4, 2013)
Donald M. Middlebrooks, presiding
Patent
DivisionWest Palm Beach
DemandDefendant
Cause28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Counter Defendant Panasonic Corporation
...
cite Cite Docket

WASHINGTON STATE OF VS LG ELECTRONICS INC ET AL

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 TypeMiscellaneous, Civil (2)
Defendant PANASONIC CORP
Defendant PANASONIC CORP OF NORTH AMERICA
...
cite Cite Docket

Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Sam...

Docket 337-897, United States International Trade Commission (Sept. 3, 2013)
Dee Lord, presiding
Case TypeSec 337
Panasonic
...
cite Cite Docket

CREDIT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and JOHN R ELTRINGHAM vs. RAMIRO...

Docket 123-02049-CVKCD, Washington State, King County, District Court (Nov. 9, 2012)
Case TypeCivil
Garnishee Defendant PANASONIC CORPORATION
...
cite Cite Docket

Long Corner Consumer Electronics LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North Americ...

Docket 2:13-cv-01012, Texas Eastern District Court (Nov. 26, 2013)
Rodney Gilstrap, presiding.
Patent

cite Cite Docket

11

Document DANILO RODRIGUEZ v. PANASONIC CORP. OF N. AMERICA et al, 21845/2019E, 11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County Apr. 26, 2019)

cite Cite Document

One-Blue LLC et al v. Imation Corporation

Docket 1:13-cv-00917, Delaware District Court (May 22, 2013)
Judge Leonard P. Stark, presiding.
Patent

cite Cite Docket

1155859

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 Cite Document

1155859

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 Cite Document

1155793

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 Cite Document

1155540

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 Cite Document

1155541

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 Cite Document

05-03-22-Copy_of_5322_minute_order - CSG_Correspondence_Coversheet_Gen...

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 Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 99 100 101 102 103 ... >>