PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

IXYS

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Abramsohn 10836894 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KAU, STEVEN Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Dahlke et al 10837006 - (D) HOSKINS 112(2)/102(b) Siemens Corporation PATEL, VISHAL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Muggli et al 11881024 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102(b)/103 Francis C. Hand, Esq., c/o Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein CHAUDRY, ATIF H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Hong et al 12057495 - (D) WARREN 103 103 PAUL AND PAUL MANGOHIG, THOMAS A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Svendsen 11697360 - (D) SMITH 103 Concert Technology Corporation RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J

2171 Ex Parte Ahuja et al 10816422 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Patent Capital Group C/O CPA Global SALOMON, PHENUEL S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Cooper et al 10494955 - (D) TORNQUIST 103 Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Rinerson et al 11095026 - (D) NAGUMO 103 Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP/Rambus JACKSON JR, JEROME

2856 Ex Parte Brady 11839118 - (D) MURPHY 112(2)/102(a)/102(b)/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CHAPMAN JR, JOHN E

2859 Ex Parte Fasse et al 12013153 - (D) SMITH 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION OMAR, AHMED H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Haaf et al 12368483 - (D) GRIMES 102(b)/102(e)/103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EVANS, EBONY E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Englman et al 11240748 - (D) KERINS 102(e)/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP MCCLELLAN, JAMES S

3752 Ex Parte Lichtig 10983210 - (D) SPAHN 103 Clifford Kraft BOECKMANN, JASON J

3754 Ex Parte Lewis et al 11611242 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. JACYNA, JCASIMER

REHEARING

DENIED 
3632 Ex Parte Stewart 11067743 - (R) DANIELS Barnes & Thornburg LLP (DC) MARSH, STEVEN M

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 TiVO INC. Requester and Respondent v. AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I, L.P.
Patent Owner and Appellant 95000601 6,983,478 09/496,825 CHEN 102(e)/103 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: IRELL & MANELLA LLP SAGER, MARK ALAN original USTARIS, JOSEPH G

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174; 2179; 2629 APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1129 D618,677 D593,087 D604,305 7,469,381 11/956,969 7,844,915 11/620,717 7,864,163 11/850,013 PROST denial of permanent injunction denial of permanent injunction Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Alston and Bird LLP; White & Case LLP PESIN, BORIS M; BAUTISTA, XIOMARA L; SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

Apple criticizes the district court for relying on the breadth of its requested injunction as a reason to deny injunctive relief. Apple argues that—consistent with this court’s injunction precedent—it properly requested an injunction limited to the infringing products and products not more than colorably different. See Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 383 F.3d 1312, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (endorsing an injunction against “infringement of the patent by the devices adjudged to infringe and infringement by devices no more than colorably different therefrom”).

HARMON 6: 25; 11: 343; 20: 354

DISMISSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 AUGUST TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, AND RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants, v. CAMTEK, LTD., Defendant-Appellant. 2012-1681, 2013-1023, 6,826,298 09/562,273 O’MALLEY Rule 59, 60 contempt, sanctions, willfulness Merchant & Gould P.C.; Cooley LLP AHMED, SAMIR ANWAR

No comments :