UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA"

Transcription

1

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA Appeal Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and LINDA E. HORNER and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R , or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R , begins to run from the MAIL DATE (paper delivery mode) or the NOTIFICATION DATE (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Mitsuhiro Nada (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. 134 of the Examiner s decision rejecting claims in reissue application 10/977,627. This reissue application seeks to reissue U.S. Patent 6,493,618 B2, issued December 10, 2002, based on Application 09/790,617, filed February 23, The reissue application contains claims Claims 1-51 stand allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). We REVERSE. SUMMARY OF DECISION THE INVENTION Appellant s claimed invention is directed to a vehicle control technique performed when some of the vehicle sensors have developed a fault. 618 Patent, col. 1, ll Claim 52, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 52. A control device for controlling a prescribed control object using first and second sensors configured to provide a control input, the control device comprising: a fault detector configured to detect that one of the first and second sensors has developed a fault by analyzing temporal variation patterns of outputs of the first and second sensors when the outputs of the first and second sensors remain within respective normal output ranges thereof, the fault detector detecting a faulty sensor by determining whether the temporal variation pattern output by each sensor corresponds to one of a plurality of preset fault patterns that represent mutually different fault events; and a control input setting section configured to determine the 2

4 control input using an output of a normal sensor other than the faulty sensor when the faulty sensor has been detected by the fault detector, the control input setting section dividing a full range of output signal levels of the normal sensor into a plurality of regions in which the control input changes at different rates of change, the control input setting section determining a change in the control input depending on which of the plurality of regions contains the output signal level of the normal sensor. THE REJECTION Appellant seeks review of the Examiner s rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. ISSUES The Examiner determined that claims violate the rule against recapture because (1) these claims fail to recite that the regions of the output signal levels of the normal sensor include an opening region in which the accelerator control input increases at a first rate of change and a closing region in which the accelerator control input decreases at a second rate of change, and (2) such feature was argued by Appellant during prosecution of the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based to overcome a prior art rejection. Ans Appellant argues that the above-mentioned feature was not necessary to distinguish over [the prior art] and was provided [in Appellant s 3

5 arguments] only as an example of the broad-based distinction that was necessary to distinguish over [the prior art] and thus Appellant did not clearly and unmistakably surrender subject matter between his example and his broader argument. App. Br. 21. Appellant further argues that claims 66-68, which depend from the original, unamended patent claims, are narrower than the original patent claims, and thus cannot be rejected for recapture. App. Br. 26. The issues presented by this appeal are: Do the broader aspects of claims and 69-74, which omit the requirement that the regions of the output signal levels of the normal sensor include an opening region in which the accelerator control input increases at a first rate of change, and a closing region in which the accelerator control input decreases at a second rate of change, relate to subject matter surrendered by arguments made during prosecution of the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based? Do reissue claims 66, 67, and 68, which depend from original patent claims 1, 18, and 35, respectively, improperly recapture subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based? 4

6 FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Appellant filed application 09/790,617 on February 23, 2001 ( the 617 application ) containing claims In a non-final Office Action, dated April 10, 2002, the Examiner rejected claims 1-51 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,116,214 to Ishida, issued September 12, Appellant s representative then conducted an interview with the Examiner at which claims 1, 18, and 35 and the prior art to Ishida were discussed. Examiner Interview Summary, dated June 5, The Examiner s summary of the substance of the interview stated, in part: Applicant s representative argues that [Ishida] does not disclose the limitations of the claims as stated dividing a full range of output signal levels of the normal sensor into a plurality of regions including an opening region in which the accelerator control input increases at a first rate of change, and a closing region in which the accelerator control input decreases at a second rate of change. Examiner Interview Summary at 3. 5

7 5. Appellant thereafter submitted a response to the office action and interview summary, in which Appellant argued: According to Ishida, a sensor output signal from a normal sensor is subjected to delay processing and limited to a guard value, but changes of the sensor output signal will be nevertheless reflected to the throttle opening in all range of the sensor output signal. Contrarily, according to the claimed invention, the full range of the sensor output signal is divided into a plurality of regions, and the change rate of the accelerator control input is determined depending on which of the plurality of regions contains the output signal level of the normal sensor. For example, the accelerator control input for the presently claimed invention increases when the output signal level of the normal sensor is present in the opening region, and it decreases when the output level signal level of the normal sensor is present in the closing region, wherein the first and second rates are not necessarily different and they may have an identical value. These features are not disclosed or suggested by Ishida. Thus, Ishida does not disclose or suggest the accelerator control input setting section dividing a full range of output signal levels of the normal sensor into a plurality of regions including an opening region in which the accelerator control input increases at a first range of change, and a closing region in which the accelerator control input decreases at a second rate of change, the accelerator control input setting section determining a change in the accelerator control input depending on which of the plurality of regions contains the output signal level of the normal sensor, as recited in claims 1, 18 and 35. 6

8 Request for Reconsideration at Appellant did not amend claims 1-51 in response to the office action. Request for Reconsideration at The Examiner thereafter issued a Notice of Allowance, and the 617 application issued as U.S. on December 10, PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Federal Circuit has described application of the recapture rule as a three-step process : (1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. No. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). It is clear that in determining whether surrender of subject matter has occurred, the proper inquiry is whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee s amendment or argument was to overcome prior art and secure the patent. This is because the recapture rule is aimed at ensuring that the public can rely on a patentee s admission during prosecution of an original patent. Thus, if the objective public observer can 7

9 discern a surrender of subject matter during the prosecution of an original patent in order to overcome prior art and obtain the patent, then the recapture rule should prevent the reissuing of that patent to claim the surrendered subject matter. Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A surrender can occur by argument as well as by amendment. Hester [Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc.], 142 F.3d [1472,] [(Fed. Cir. 1998)] (noting the statement in Clement that [t]o determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection (quoting [In re] Clement, 131 F.3d [1464,] 1469 [(Fed. Cir. 1997)]) (emphasis added in Hester, 142 F.3d at 1480)). We stated in Hester that, like prosecution history estoppel, unmistakable assertions made to the Patent Office in support of patentability can give rise to a surrender for purposes of the recapture rule. Id. at Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Claims and ANALYSIS Upon review of the arguments submitted by Appellant during prosecution of the 617 application, we conclude that these arguments did not amount to an unmistakable assertion in support of patentability that would give rise to surrender of the subject matter now being claimed in claims and While we acknowledge that this is a close case, the crux of Appellant s argument made during the 617 application to overcome the anticipation rejection based on Ishida was that Ishida does not disclose that 8

10 the full range of the sensor output signal is divided into a plurality of regions, and the change rate of the accelerator control input is determined depending on which of the plurality of regions contains the output signal level of the normal sensor. Fact 5. In particular, Appellant contrasted this feature of the claim with the control system of Ishida in which a sensor output signal from a normal sensor is subjected to delay processing and limited to a guard value, but changes of the sensor output signal will be nevertheless reflected to the throttle opening in all range[s] of the sensor output signal (emphasis added). Fact 5. As such, we find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Appellant to have argued that the patentable distinction of the claimed control device over the control device of Ishida is that the claimed control device divides the full range of the sensor output signal into a plurality of regions and uses these regions to determine the change rate of the accelerator control input. While Appellant s arguments provided an example of one way of determining the accelerator control input using the claimed regions, we find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand this example to be merely illustrative of the claimed invention and not as being necessary to distinguish the claimed invention from Ishida. While the Appellant s arguments end with a conclusory paragraph in which Appellant recited the language from the entire claim accelerator control input limitation, we find that a person having ordinary skill in the art, reading this conclusory paragraph in light of the prior arguments made by 9

11 Appellant, Appellant s claims, and the disclosure of Ishida, would not understand this paragraph to be an unmistakable assertion that the opening and closing regions are the features that distinguish the claimed control device from Ishida s control device. Finally, we note that Appellant in this instance did not amend the claims in response to the rejection over Ishida to add the language now being omitted from the reissue claims on appeal. Fact 6. This is an important factor in our decision because [d]eliberately canceling or amending a claim in an effort to overcome a [prior art] reference strongly suggests that the Applicant admits that the scope of the claim before cancellation or amendment is unpatentable. In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Hester Indus., 142 F.3d at 1481 ( an amendment to overcome a prior art rejection evidences an admission that the claim was not patentable ). Each of the independent apparatus claims 52, 55, 57, 63 2, and 64 recites the control input setting section dividing a full range of output signal levels of the normal sensor into a plurality of regions in which the control input changes at different rates of change, [and] the control input setting section determining a change in the control input depending on which of the plurality of regions contains the output signal level of the normal sensor. 2 Claim 63 recites the first or second sensor in place of the normal sensor. 10

12 Each of the independent method claims 58, 61, and 65 3 similarly recites the steps of dividing a full range of output signal levels of the normal sensor into a plurality of regions in which the control input changes at different rates of change, and determining a change in the control input depending on which of the plurality of regions contains the output signal level of the normal sensor. These were the same features argued by Appellant in the 617 application to overcome the rejection based on Ishida. Fact 5. As such, reissue claims and do not impermissibly recapture surrendered subject matter. Hence, we will reverse the rejection of claims and under 35 U.S.C Claims Claims 66, 67, and 68 depend from original, unamended claims 1, 18, and 35, respectively. Each of these dependent claims, by virtue of its dependency, includes the limitation of the accelerator control input setting section dividing a full range of output signal levels of the normal sensor into a plurality of regions include an opening region in which the accelerator control input increases at a first rate of change, and a closing region in which the accelerator control input decreases at a second rate of change. Thus, these claims do not do not impermissibly recapture surrendered subject matter. Hence, we will reverse the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C Claim 65 recites the first or second sensor in place of the normal sensor. 11

13 CONCLUSIONS The broader aspects of claims and 69-74, which omit the requirement that the regions of the output signal levels of the normal sensor include an opening region in which the accelerator control input increases at a first rate of change, and a closing region in which the accelerator control input decreases at a second rate of change, do not relate to subject matter surrendered by arguments made during prosecution of the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. Reissue claims 66, 67, and 68, which depend from original patent claims 1, 18, and 35, respectively, do not improperly recapture subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims is REVERSED. REVERSED nlk OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC P.O. BOX ALEXANDRIA VA

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/045,902 01/16/2002 Shunpei Yamazaki

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/045,902 01/16/2002 Shunpei Yamazaki UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT

More information

Ex parte MICHAEL WAYNE SHORE

Ex parte MICHAEL WAYNE SHORE Case: 16-1461 Document: 1-4 Page: 7 Filed: 01/12/2016 (10 of 21) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL WAYNE SHORE Appeal 2012-008394 Technology

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY II, L.P., Appellant 2016-1830 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV Technology Center 2100 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before JAMES T. MOORE and ALLEN

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DYNAMIC DRINKWARE, LLC, Appellant v. NATIONAL GRAPHICS, INC., Appellee 2015-1214 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Appeal Application 13/294,044 2 Technology Center 3600 DECISION ON APPEAL

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Appeal Application 13/294,044 2 Technology Center 3600 DECISION ON APPEAL Case: 17-2069 Document: 1-2 Page: 13 Filed: 05/23/2017 (14 of 24) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARIO VILLENA and JOSE VILLENA 1 2 Technology

More information

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte ANDREA VENTURELLI Appeal 2010-007594 Technology Center 3700 Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and

More information

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Application of: Response to Office Action Nat G. Adkins JR. Group Art Unit: 3623 Serial No.: 12/648,897 Examiner: Gills, Kurtis Filed: December 29,

More information

Paper 11 Tel: Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 11 Tel: Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. 12 Date Entered: March 20, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner v. CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS,

More information

[NOTE: The following annotated sections of the C.F.R. are from BNA s Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Regulations,

[NOTE: The following annotated sections of the C.F.R. are from BNA s Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Regulations, [NOTE: The following annotated sections of the C.F.R. are from BNA s Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Regulations, edited by James D. Crowne, and are current as of June 1, 2003.] APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF

More information

Information Disclosure to the USPTO: How Much Information is Required and What Constitutes a Reasonable Inquiry

Information Disclosure to the USPTO: How Much Information is Required and What Constitutes a Reasonable Inquiry Information Disclosure to the USPTO: How Much Information is Required and What Constitutes a Reasonable Inquiry W. Todd Baker Attorney at Law 703-412-6383 TBAKER@oblon.com 2 Topics of Discussion 2006 Proposed

More information

Ex p arte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant

Ex p arte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Case: 16-1402 Document: 1-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/04/2016 (7 of 55) UNITED ST A TES PA TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex p arte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Appea12014-007899

More information

Subpart B Ex Parte Appeals. in both. Other parallel citations are discouraged.

Subpart B Ex Parte Appeals. in both. Other parallel citations are discouraged. PATENT RULES 41.30 41.10 Correspondence addresses. Except as the Board may otherwise direct, (a) Appeals. Correspondence in an application or a patent involved in an appeal (subparts B and C of this part)

More information

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper 51 Date Entered: December 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Petitioner,

More information

NEW PATENT PROSECUTION HIGHWAY PILOT PROGRAM BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CHINA

NEW PATENT PROSECUTION HIGHWAY PILOT PROGRAM BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CHINA NEW PATENT PROSECUTION HIGHWAY PILOT PROGRAM BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CHINA December 5, 2011 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's

More information

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

Paper Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 81 571-272-7822 Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAP AMERICA, INC. Petitioner, v. VERSATA DEVELOPMENT

More information

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/986,966 11/27/2007 Edward K.Y. Jung SE US 4625

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/986,966 11/27/2007 Edward K.Y. Jung SE US 4625 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS Serial No. 10/770,767

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS Serial No. 10/770,767 Case: 14-1474 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 10/17/2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS 2014-1474 Serial No. 10/770,767 Appeal from the United States Patent

More information

Paper Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC, Petitioner, v. MAGNA ELECTRONICS,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: DDMB, INC., Appellant 2016-2037 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark

More information

RK Mailed: May 24, 2013

RK Mailed: May 24, 2013 This Decision is a Precedent of the TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 RK Mailed: May 24, 2013 Cancellation No. 92055645

More information

USPTO REVISES PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT RULES

USPTO REVISES PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT RULES USPTO REVISES PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT RULES August 30, 2012 Effective September 17, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is revising its rules of practice to (1) indicate that, for the purpose

More information

Paper 16 Tel: Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 16 Tel: Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Petitioner v. PHISON ELECTRONICS

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SPHERIX INCORPORATED, Appellant v. JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS & DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

More information

Revision of Patent Term Adjustment Provisions Relating to Information. AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

Revision of Patent Term Adjustment Provisions Relating to Information. AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/01/2011 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2011-30933, and on FDsys.gov [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United

More information

Case 1:15-cv RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164

Case 1:15-cv RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164 Case 1:15-cv-00753-RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE [Dkt. No. 26] NORMARILY CRUZ, on behalf

More information

Paper No Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 16 571-272-7822 Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANDOZ INC., Petitioner, v. ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD.,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 16-2287 Document: 46-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2017 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, Appellant v. CERRO WIRE LLC, FKA CERRO WIRE, INC., Appellee 2016-2287 Appeal

More information

Paper Entered: February 27, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: February 27, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: February 27, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Petitioner v. PROGRESSIVE

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REALTIME DATA, LLC, DBA IXO, Appellant v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC, Appellant v. THALES VISIONIX, INC., Appellee 2017-1355 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jack E. Haken, Philips Intellectual Property & Standards, of Briarcliff Manor, New York, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for the appellant. Of counsel was Larry Liberchuk. Stephen Walsh, Acting

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY and O BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY and O BRIEN, Circuit Judges. MARGARET GRAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 21, 2017 Elisabeth

More information

72270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

72270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 72270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 1 and 41 [No. PTO P 2009 0021]

More information

Enforcing U.S. Patents on Blockchains Distributed Worldwide

Enforcing U.S. Patents on Blockchains Distributed Worldwide BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 95 PTCJ 731, 04/20/2018. Copyright 2018 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- SKE Base Services GmbH Under Contract No. FA5613-10-C-0011 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 60101 Mr. Edward Hayes Director APPEARANCES FOR THE

More information

Paper Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 571-272-7822 Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Petitioner, v. PERSONAL AUDIO,

More information

Paper 9 Tel: Entered: April 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 9 Tel: Entered: April 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ASKELADDEN LLC, Petitioner, v. isourceloans LLC, Patent

More information

Case: Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/ (Application No. 13/294,044) IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA,

Case: Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/ (Application No. 13/294,044) IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA, Case: 17-2069 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/2018 2017-2069 (Application No. 13/294,044) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA, Appellants. Appeal

More information

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals Cite as: Size Appeal of BR Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5303 (2011) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: BR Construction, LLC, Appellant, SBA NO.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Case No CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al.,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Case No CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., Case: 10-35642 08/27/2013 ID: 8758655 DktEntry: 105 Page: 1 of 14 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case No. 10-35642 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1220 NUFARM AMERICA S, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Joel R. Junker, Joel R. Junker & Associates, of Seattle,

More information

Case 1:05-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:05-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 1:05-cv-00408-RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NAYDA LOPEZ and BENJAMIN LOPEZ, Case No. 1:05-CV-408 Plaintiffs,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant Case: 16-1280 Document: 1-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/03/2015 (6 of 57) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant Patent 8,282,977 Technology

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873) IN RE BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873) IN RE BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1463 (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873) IN RE BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED Kenneth Solomon, Howell & Haferkamp, L.C., of St. Louis, Missouri,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Serial No. 10/798,505) IN RE KEISUKE AOYAMA, KOJIRO TOYOSHIMA, AND YOSHITAKA EZAKI 2010-1552 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

More information

Patent Prosecution Update

Patent Prosecution Update Patent Prosecution Update August 2011 Business Methods in 2011: Business as Usual? by Erika Harmon Arner One year ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that business methods cannot be categorically

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-60978 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, versus Petitioner-Appellant, BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS HOLDING, INC. and SUBSIDIARIES, Respondent-Appellee.

More information

Effective Appellate Advocacy in Ex Parte Appeals Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 1

Effective Appellate Advocacy in Ex Parte Appeals Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 1 Effective Appellate Advocacy in Ex Parte Appeals Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 1 Chief Administrative Patent Judge Michael Fleming and Administrative Patent Judges Sally Lane, Linda

More information

Case: Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/

Case: Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/ Case: 18-1586 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2018 2018-1586 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE INTELLIGENT MEDICAL OBJECTS, INC., Appellant. Appeal from the United States Patent

More information

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. Roger H. Lee, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727

More information

In Re: Downey Financial Corp

In Re: Downey Financial Corp 2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-26-2015 In Re: Downey Financial Corp Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

More information

CPA Says Error, IRS Says Method March 17, 2008

CPA Says Error, IRS Says Method March 17, 2008 CPA Says Error, IRS Says Method March 17, 2008 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com 2008 Edward K. Zollars,

More information

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. ADVANCEME, INC. Plaintiff. v. RAPIDPAY, LLC, Business Capital Corporation, First Funds LLC, Merchant Money Tree, Inc., Reach Financial, LLC and

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ) ) ) ) ) OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ) ) ) ) ) OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - LKJ Crabbe Inc. Under Contract No. W9124E-15-D-0002 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARNCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60331 Mr. Kevin Crabbe President

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N D-0037 )

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N D-0037 ) ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ) ASBCA No. 50657 ) Under Contract No. N62472-90-D-0037 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC., Appellant v. STRAVA, INC., UA CONNECTED FITNESS, INC., Appellees 2016-1475 Appeal from the United States Patent and

More information

Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before SCHOELEN, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION

Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before SCHOELEN, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 13-328 RONALD FRADKIN, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before

More information

Paper Entered: 15 August 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: 15 August 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: 15 August 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DOMINION DEALER SOLUTIONS, LLC. Petitioner v. AUTOALERT,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNWIRED PLANET, LLC, Appellant v. GOOGLE INC., Appellee 2015-1812 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal

More information

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals Cite as: Size Appeal of LGS Management, Inc., SBA No. (2010) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: LGS Management, Inc. Appellant SBA No. Decided: October

More information

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. No PLASMART, INC., Appellant

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. No PLASMART, INC., Appellant U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 2011-1570 PLASMART, INC., Appellant v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee and JAR CHEN WANG, Appellee and HONG

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KELLY L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 2012-3074 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-13-2008 Ward v. Avaya Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3246 Follow this and additional

More information

Paper 25 Tel: Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 25 Tel: Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 25 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SURE-FIRE ELECTRICAL CORPORATION, 1 Petitioner, v. YONGJIANG

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BONNIE J. RUSICK, Claimant-Appellant, v. SLOAN D. GIBSON, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. 2013-7105 Appeal from the United

More information

Overview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips

Overview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips Overview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips Scott Wolinsky April 12, 2017 2017 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Decision Factors for Filing Appeal at USPTO - Advancement of Prosecution has

More information

Case 2:16-cv CCC-SCM Document 13 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 94

Case 2:16-cv CCC-SCM Document 13 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 94 Case 2:16-cv-04422-CCC-SCM Document 13 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 94 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY RAFAEL DISLA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Environmental Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 53283 ) Under Contract No. DAAB07-98-C-Y007 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ross W. Dembling, Esq. Holland

More information

United States Markush Practice in Flux. Brian K. Lathrop, Ph.D., Esq. April 3, 2012

United States Markush Practice in Flux. Brian K. Lathrop, Ph.D., Esq. April 3, 2012 United States Markush Practice in Flux Brian K. Lathrop, Ph.D., Esq. April 3, 2012 Disclaimer > The views presented here are my own and should not be attributed to Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, its clients,

More information

Case 4:10-cv TSH Document 1 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 4:10-cv TSH Document 1 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 4:10-cv-40124-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 191 TIFFANY ALLEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11394 Hon. Matthew

More information

Wallace Barr v. Harrahs Ent Inc

Wallace Barr v. Harrahs Ent Inc 2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-7-2009 Wallace Barr v. Harrahs Ent Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2646 Follow

More information

Using Supplemental Examination Effectively to Strengthen the Value of Your Patents BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal September 30, 2011

Using Supplemental Examination Effectively to Strengthen the Value of Your Patents BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal September 30, 2011 Using Supplemental Examination Effectively to Strengthen the Value of Your Patents BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal September 30, 2011 REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617-489-0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com

More information

Department of Labor Reverses Course: Mortgage Loan Officers Do Not Meet the Administrative Exemption s Requirements

Department of Labor Reverses Course: Mortgage Loan Officers Do Not Meet the Administrative Exemption s Requirements A Timely Analysis of Legal Developments A S A P In This Issue: March 2010 In a development that may have significant implications for mortgage lenders and other financial services employers, the Department

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Tracie Pham, Esq. Best Best & Krieger LLP Riverside, CA

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Tracie Pham, Esq. Best Best & Krieger LLP Riverside, CA ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) AG Engineering, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 53370 ) Under Contract No. DAKF04-94-D-0009 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Dwight

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 18, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit VEHICLE IP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC AND TELENAV, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JLK. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JLK. versus Merly Nunez v. GEICO General Insurance Compan Doc. 1116498500 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] MERLY NUNEZ, a.k.a. Nunez Merly, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

More information

What to Do When Facing a Patent Infringement Law Suit. Presented by: Robert W. Morris

What to Do When Facing a Patent Infringement Law Suit. Presented by: Robert W. Morris What to Do When Facing a Patent Infringement Law Suit Presented by: Robert W. Morris LEGAL PRIMER: 2016 UPDATE AUGUST 5, 2016 So you have been sued Options: Litigate United States Patent and Trademark

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33 571-272-7822 Entered: December 17, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Petitioner, v. 5th

More information

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals Cite as: Size Appeal of G&C Fab-Con, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5960 (2018) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: G&C Fab-Con., LLC, Appellant, SBA No. SIZ-5960

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Precision Standard, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54027 ) Under Contract No. F41608-95-C-1176 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Nancy M. Camardo, Esq. Law Office

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv JDW-TGW

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv JDW-TGW [PUBLISH] BARRY OPPENHEIM, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee, versus I.C. SYSTEM, INC., llllllllllllllllllllldefendant - Appellant. FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit http://finweb1/library/cafc/.htm Page 1 of 14 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit GLAXO WELLCOME, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Stephen

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals. (Decided June 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals. (Decided June 22, 2012) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 11-1828 DAVID A. MAYS, APPELLANT, V. David A. Mays, Pro se. ERIC K. SHINSEKI SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of

More information

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 10CA3157 JAMES A. PONTIOUS, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 10CA3157 JAMES A. PONTIOUS, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY [Cite as Pontious v. Pontoius, 2011-Ohio-40.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY AVA D. PONTIOUS, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 10CA3157 vs. : JAMES A. PONTIOUS, :

More information

TRANSBORDER ISSUES AND EXHAUSTION. Sasha Rao

TRANSBORDER ISSUES AND EXHAUSTION. Sasha Rao TRANSBORDER ISSUES AND EXHAUSTION Sasha Rao 1 THE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES REQUIREMENT The patent statute states: whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,

More information

Ryan et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al Doc. 53. Case 1:17-cv TWT Document 53 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 15

Ryan et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al Doc. 53. Case 1:17-cv TWT Document 53 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 15 Ryan et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al Doc. 53 Case 1:17-cv-00817-TWT Document 53 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

More information

Case 1:06-cv DLC Document 19 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:06-cv DLC Document 19 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 1 of 9 Case 106-cv-13248-DLC Document 19 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X FALLU PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, -v-

More information