Paper Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
|
|
- George Craig
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Paper 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, INC., Patent Owner. Case IPR Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Petitioner s Request for Rehearing 37 C.F.R
2 I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner TRW Automotive US LLC filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 16, Req. Reh g ) of the Decision mailed June 26, 2014 (Paper 14, Decision ), which instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 8, 9, 18, 29, 30, 54, 62 64, and 70 of U.S. (Ex. 1002, the 023 patent ). In its request, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of our decision not to institute inter partes review with respect to claims 2 and 13 of the 023 patent. Req. Reh g 1. The Request for Rehearing is denied. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a patent, the Board may deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims. 37 C.F.R (b). When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R (c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and [t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R (d). III. ANALYSIS A. Claim 13 Petitioner argues that the Board incorrectly construed the claim 13 phrase aim of the vehicle s headlights to specifically exclude switching between low beams and high beams. Req. Reh g 2. Petitioner asserts that the phrase should be construed, in view of the Specification of the 023 patent, to include switching between low beams and high beams, and, if so construed, inter partes review of claim 13 should be instituted. Id. at 3.
3 We initially note that Petitioner concedes that its Petition (Paper 3, Pet. ) did not set forth a proposed interpretation for the phrase aim of the vehicle s headlights (Req. Reh g 2), and therefore we cannot identify where the Petition supports the position that this phrase should be construed to include switching between low beams and high beams. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked something that was not presented in the Petition. Furthermore, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement the initial petition. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded by Petitioner s argument that we incorrectly construed the phrase in question. First, Petitioner s assertion that our claim construction specifically excludes switching between low beams and high beams mischaracterizes the interpretation. Petitioner s assertion appears to be based on our discussion on page 23 of the Decision regarding Petitioner s contention that Yanagawa (Ex. 1004) discloses varying the aim of a vehicle s headlights. Req. Reh g 2. This portion of the Decision stated that the passage of Yanagawa relied on by Petitioner merely describes executing tasks, such as controlling the headlight beams (i.e., switching between low beams and high beams) or issuing a warning to the driver. It does not describe varying the aim of the vehicle s headlights, as the term is properly construed. Decision 23. As such, we did not state that headlight aim cannot be varied by switching between low beams and high beams. Instead, we stated that Yanagawa describes controlling the headlight beams, but does not describe varying the aim of the vehicle s headlights specifically. 1 Indeed, the Petition does not point to any portion of Yanagawa that explicitly discloses that switching between low beams 1 Our indication that controlling the headlight beams includes switching between low beams and high beams was based on other portions of Yanagawa. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3 4 ( in the next step 108, the headlights are controlled to switch the headlights to low beams ). 3
4 and high beams will vary the aim of the vehicle s headlights. Nor does the Petition provide any basis to suggest that Yanagawa inherently or implicitly discloses that switching between low beams and high beams will vary the aim of the vehicle s headlights. Accordingly, we determined that, on the record before us, Petitioner had not established that Yanagawa discloses varying headlight aim. Second, Petitioner s reliance on the Specification of the 023 patent conflates the meaning of the phrase aim of the vehicle s headlights with techniques for varying the aim of a vehicle s headlights. The passage relied on by Petitioner states that control of headlamps 18 may be a binary control of the aim of the beam, such as by switching between lamps or lamp filaments, or may be a continuous variation of the aim of a single lamp more or less forward of the vehicle. Ex. 1002, 3: This passage describes (albeit in little detail) two ways in which the headlight aim can be varied. The passage does not provide a specific definition for the phrase aim of the vehicle s headlights ; nor does it suggest that the phrase has a meaning other than its ordinary meaning. We did not misapprehend or overlook this passage in construing the phrase aim of the vehicle s headlights. Instead, we construed the meaning of the phrase independent of techniques for varying the aim. Our construction did not include or exclude any particular way of varying the aim. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that the Board abused its discretion in denying the asserted ground of unpatentability of claim 13. B. Claim 2 Regarding claim 2, Petitioner argues that the Board failed to appreciate the evidence of record that in-cab mounting is a matter of equivalent design choice. Req. Reh g 3. Petitioner asserts that this evidence was presented in the analysis of 4
5 claim 1 set forth on pages of the Petition. 2 Id. at 4. The Board, however, considered the evidence and argument presented in the Petition but did not find it persuasive. Decision 25. Petitioner s argument here is merely disagreement with the Board s findings and conclusions. Such disagreement is not a sufficient basis on which to request rehearing. Nevertheless, we further address Petitioner s evidence and argument. Petitioner first notes that Yanagawa discloses that television camera 11 may be mounted at any location from which the forward direction of the vehicle can be imaged. Req. Reh g 4; Pet. 30, 32 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5). Petitioner does not elaborate on this assertion, but, presumably, Petitioner s point is that although Yanagawa does not explicitly disclose that television camera 11 is positioned in the vehicle cabin, the possibility of an in-cabin mounting is not ruled out. The mere possibility of in-cabin mounting, however, is not sufficient to render the claimed positioning obvious. Petitioner also asserts that the 023 patent does not disclose any particular unexpected advantage of placing the headlamp control assembly to view through the windshield. As such, the selection of a vantage point looking through the windshield is merely a matter of equivalent design choice. Req. Reh g 4; Pet. 30. The 023 patent, however, discloses that mounting image sensor 14 within the interior of the vehicle provides the advantage of substantially eliminat[ing] environmental dirt and moisture from fouling the light sensor module. Ex. 1002, 4:3 7. Petitioner has not explained adequately why, in view of this disclosed advantage, an in-cab mounting would have been merely a matter of equivalent design choice. 2 The claim 1 analysis was incorporated by reference into the arguments regarding claim 2. Req. Reh g 4; Pet
6 In addition, Petitioner asserts that [m]inor differences between the prior art and a claimed device may be a matter of design choice absent evidence to the contrary. Req. Reh g 4; Pet. 30, 32 (quoting In re Conte, 36 Fed. App x 446, 451 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (unpublished) (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965))). Petitioner s reliance on this quotation from Conte, however, is misplaced in this instance. First, the quotation merely states that minor differences may be a matter of design choice absent evidence to the contrary; it does not state that all minor differences necessarily are matters of design choice absent evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the Conte quotation is a rephrasing of the conclusion from Rice that design changes that did not result in a difference in function or give unexpected results were no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in th[e] art of the patent at issue in that case. Rice, 341 F.2d at 314. In the present case, Petitioner has not cited persuasive evidence that the 023 patent s in-cab mounting disclosed as providing the advantage of substantially eliminating environmental dirt and moisture would not result in a difference in function or give unexpected results. Lastly, Petitioner argues that the obviousness of claim 1 is confirmed by the expert declaration of Jeffrey A. Miller. (1010 at 20-21). Req. Reh g 4; Pet. 31. We disagree. Dr. Miller s declaration (Ex. 1010) merely quotes the same passage from Yanagawa discussed above regarding the positioning of television camera 11 and then opines, without further support, that the selection of a vantage point looking through the windshield is merely a matter of equivalent design choice. Ex This analysis does not add to the arguments made in the Petition or Request for Rehearing, which are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Board abused its discretion in denying the asserted ground of unpatentability of claim 2. 6
7 is denied. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner s Request for Rehearing 7
8 PETITIONER: Josh Snider Timothy Sendek A. Justin Poplin LATHROP & GAGE LLP PATENT OWNER: Timothy A. Flory Terence J. Linn GARDNER, LINN, BURKHART & FLORY, LLP David K.S. Cornwell STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC 8
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 informationPaper 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 informationPaper 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 informationPaper 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 informationPaper 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 informationPaper Entered: May 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: May 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Petitioner, v. INTELLECTUAL
More informationUNITED 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 informationPaper Entered: April 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APOTEX INC. Petitioner v. WYETH LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2014-00115
More informationPaper 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 informationPaper 23 Tel: Entered: July 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
More informationPaper 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 informationUnited 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 informationFiled 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 informationPaper 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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. INGURAN, LLC d/b/a SEXING TECHNOLOGIES, Petitioner
Paper No. 10 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INGURAN, LLC d/b/a SEXING TECHNOLOGIES, Petitioner v. PREMIUM GENETICS (UK) LTD., Patent Owner Case No. PGR2015-00017
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA Appeal 2010-011219 Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative
More informationThe 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 informationRK 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 informationEx 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 informationUnited 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 informationPlease 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 informationUNITED 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 informationUNITED 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 informationUNITED 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 informationUnited 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 informationUNITED 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 informationWhat 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 informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Williams Adley & Company -- DC. LLP, SBA No. SIZ-5341 (2012) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Williams Adley & Company
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TEAM MEMBER SUBSIDIARY, L.L.C., Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 6, 2011 v No. 294169 Livingston Circuit Court LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH LC No. 08-023981-AV
More information151 FERC 61,045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
151 FERC 61,045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable.
More informationARMED 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 informationEx 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 informationUnited 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 informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Fru-Con Construction Corporation ) ) ASBCA No Under Contract No. DACW69-93-C-0022 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Fru-Con Construction Corporation ) ) ASBCA No. 53794 Under Contract No. DACW69-93-C-0022 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationUNITED 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 informationAPPLICATION 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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
Case: 14-1628 Document: 003112320132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1628 FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY INC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
More informationCase 2:17-cv CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01502-CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ) BUREAU, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil
More informationPaper 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 informationUnited 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 informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC., Petitioner-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 12, 2010 9:00 a.m. v No. 289292 Tax Tribunal CITY OF DETROIT, LC No. 00-318224; 00-328284; 00-328928
More informationCase: 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 informationUNITED 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 informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Environmental Chemical Corporation ) ASBCA No. 54141 ) Under Contract Nos. DACA45-95-D-0026 ) et al. ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES
More informationIN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: JEFFREY S. DIBLE STEVE CARTER MICHAEL T. BINDNER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA ROBERT L. HARTLEY JENNIFER E. GAUGER JENNIFER L. VANLANDINGHAM DEPUTY ATTORNEY
More informationState Tax Return (214) (214)
January 2006 Volume 13 Number 2 State Tax Return Sales Of Products Transported Into Indiana By Common Carrier Arranged By Buyer Are Not Indiana Sales For Indiana Corporate Income Tax Apportionment Purposes:
More informationCHANCES ARE... A FORTUITY CASE STUDY A POLICYHOLDER S PERSPECTIVE
CHANCES ARE... A FORTUITY CASE STUDY A POLICYHOLDER S PERSPECTIVE American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel 5 th Annual Meeting Chicago, IL May 11 12, 2017 Presented by: Bernard P. Bell
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DAN M. SLEE, Petitioner-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 16, 2008 v No. 277890 Washtenaw Circuit Court PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT LC No. 06-001069-AA SYSTEM, Respondent-Appellant.
More informationInformation 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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 16 1422 & 16 1423 KAREN SMITH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. and KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., Defendants Appellees. Appeals
More informationIN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: BRADLEY KIM THOMAS NATHAN D. HOGGATT THOMAS & HARDY, LLP Auburn, IN ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: STEVE CARTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA JENNIFER E. GAUGER MATTHEW R. NICHOLSON
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) BAE Systems Information & Electronic ) ASBCA No. 44832 Systems Integration, Inc. (formerly Lockheed ) Martin IR Imaging Systems, Inc., and Loral
More informationUnited 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 informationCircuit Court for Montgomery County Case No V UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 423509V UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00768 September Term, 2017 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND v. PETER GANG Eyler, Deborah S., Shaw
More informationADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF LENOIR 11 DST ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF LENOIR 11 DST 02437 Ella Joyner Petitioner vs. Department of State Treasurer Retirement System Division Respondent DECISION This
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeals of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos , ) Under Contract No. SPO D-0108 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 50749, 54506 ) Under Contract No. SPO450-94-D-0108 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationNATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES - DECISION - 11/30/07 TAT (E) (GC) - DECISION
NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES - DECISION - 11/30/07 TAT (E) 04-33 (GC) - DECISION GENERAL CORPORATION TAX UNDER THE CAPITAL METHOD OF COMPUTING ITS GCT LIABILITY, PETITIONER SHOULD INCLUDE
More informationUnited 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 informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Penn Enterprises, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 52234 ) Under Contract No. DABT31-97-D-0001 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Christopher Solop, Esq. Lynn Hawkins
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- 2Connect W.L.L. Under Contract No. 2CON W 000276 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 59233 Shelly L. Ewald, Esq. Scott P. Fitzsimmons, Esq. Watt,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : DAVID K. HOUCK, : : Appellant : No. 489 WDA 2015 Appeal from the
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. KENNETH L. MALLORY AND LARITA K. MALLORY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2016-110 UNITED STATES TAX COURT KENNETH L. MALLORY AND LARITA K. MALLORY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 14873-14. Filed June 6, 2016. Joseph A. Flores,
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Matter of Cooper-Glory, LLC, SBA No. VET-166 (2009) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals IN THE MATTER OF: Cooper-Glory, LLC Appellant SBA No. VET-166 Decided:
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Emerson Construction Company, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 55165 ) Under Contract No. DAKF48-97-D-0020 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Matter of Artis Builders, Inc., SBA No. (2011) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals IN THE MATTER OF: Artis Builders, Inc. Appellant SBA No. Decided: April
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 04-3376 JAMES A. KOKKINIS, v. Petitioner,
More informationStarting An AIA Post-Grant Proceeding
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Starting An AIA Post-Grant Proceeding Law360, New
More informationPlease 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 informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-631 In the Supreme Court of the United States ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Petitioner v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Respondents On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA JOHN RANNIGAN, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) Case No. 1:08-CV-256 v. ) ) Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE ) FOR
More information119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4789-00. Filed September 16, 2002. This is an action
More informationUnited 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 informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 34 Filed: 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:654
Case: 1:15-cv-10798 Document #: 34 Filed: 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:654 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationUNITED 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 informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON ) ) ) ) ) UE 335 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON In the Matter of PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Request for a General Rate Revision UE 335 CALPINE ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC s REPLY BRIEF ON DIRECT ACCESS
More informationBEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE In the Matter of: ) ) L AND S M ) ) OAH No. 11-0416-PFD 2011 Permanent Fund Dividends ) Agency Nos. 2011-044-0172/0233
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioner, RULING AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION RODNEY A. SAWVELL D/B/A PRAIRIE CAMPER SALES (P), DOCKET NO. 06-S-140 (P) Petitioner, vs. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULING AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
More informationVol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief
Vol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief California Supreme Court Provides Guidance on the Commissioned Salesperson Exemption KARIMAH J. LAMAR... 415 CA Labor & Employment Bulletin
More informationIN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Security First Insurance Company, Case No. 1D14-1864 Lower Case No. 149960-14 Appellant, v. State of Florida, Office of Insurance Regulation,
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) FloorPro, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N M-2013 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) FloorPro, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54143 ) Under Contract No. N62467-02-M-2013 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: James S.
More informationOPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Bulova Technologies Ordnance Systems LLC ) ASBCA No. 57406 ) Under Contract No. W91CRB-09-C-OO14 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Eric R. Pellenbarg,
More informationUnited 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 informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1285 In re the Marriage of: Nicole Ruth Sela,
More informationPATRICK MCGOVERN, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE PATRICK MCGOVERN, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION, an Agency of the State of Arizona; THOMAS J.
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF LAKES REGION WATER COMPANY, INC. (New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationUnited 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137) STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. VALIDATION OF NOT EXCEEDING $35,000,000 OSCEOLA COUNTY, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a FLORIDA TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. LACHLAN MACLEARN & a. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY. Argued: October 19, 2011 Opinion Issued: January 27, 2012
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationEffective 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No.
Filing # 12738024 Electronically Filed 04/21/2014 04:09:09 PM RECEIVED, 4/21/2014 16:13:38, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Application Under the Equal Access ) to Justice Act -- ) ) Rex Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 52247 ) Under Contract No. F09603-92-C-0709 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC, SBA No. (2009) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Alutiiq International Solutions,
More informationCedric R. Kotowicz TC Memo
Cedric R. Kotowicz TC Memo 1991-563 CLICK HERE to return to the home page GOFFE, Judge: The Commissioner determined the following deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax against petitioner: Taxable
More informationAnswer of the Environmental Law & Policy Center to Petition for Rehearing
November 26, 2018 Ms. Kavita Kale Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 W. Saginaw Hwy. P. O. Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 RE: MPSC Case No. U-18351 Dear Ms. Kale: The following is attached for paperless
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Matter of Robra Construction, Inc., SBA No. VET-160 (2009) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals IN THE MATTER OF: Robra Construction, Inc. Appellant SBA No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Deer Oaks Office Park Owners Association v. State Farm Lloyds Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEER OAKS OFFICE PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CIVIL
More informationPlease 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 informationCase 2:08-cv CEH-SPC Document 38 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT.
Case 2:08-cv-00277-CEH-SPC Document 38 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CASE
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LELO INC., LELOI AB, Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee STANDARD INNOVATION (US) CORP., STANDARD INNOVATION CORPORATION Intervenors
More informationCamico Mutual Insurance Co v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-10-2014 Camico Mutual Insurance Co v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
More information