UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner
|
|
- Trevor Davis
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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, LLC Patent Owner Case CBM Before, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review 37 C.F.R
2 BACKGROUND Pursuant to 35 U.S. C. 321 and section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 1, Redfin Corporation. ( Petitioner ) filed a Petition requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board initiate a covered business method patent review to review claims 1-20 (the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 5,361,201 (the 201 Patent) 2. Paper 5 ( Pet. ). Corelogic Solutions, LLC ( Patent Owner ) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 11 ( Prelim. Resp. ). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C The standard for instituting a covered business method patent review is the same as that for a post-grant review. AIA 18(a)(1). The standard for instituting post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 324(a), which provides: THRESHOLD The Director may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. ] 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. Some of the claims of the 201 Patent challenged by Petitioner in this proceeding were the subject of a final decision and judgment in CBM , entered on January 30, Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM (PTAB Jan. 30, 2014) (Final Written Decision) (Paper 58). In CBM , we held that the 201 Patent meets the definition of a covered business method patent under 37 C.F.R and (a), that claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 of the 201 Patent recite unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and that claims 1, 6, 9 and 10 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C Thus, 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No , 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) ( AIA ). 2 Patent Owner disclaimed claim 5 in CBM
3 Petitioner s challenges to claims 1, 6, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102 and 103 in this proceeding are moot. In this proceeding, we address Petitioner s challenges to claims 2-4, 7, 8, and Petitioner s sole challenge is that claims 2-4, 7, 8, and fail to comply with the patentable subject matter requirements of 35 U.S.C Pet Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which we determined qualifies the 201 Patent for covered business method patent review under 37 C.F.R and 37 C.F.R (a). CM (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (Dec. to Institute) (Paper 16). We are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated it is more likely than not that claims 2-4, 7, 8, and do not recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and we institute a trial on these claims. PENDING LITIGATION A person may not file a petition under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents unless the person or the person s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement or has been charged with infringement under that patent. See AIA 18(a)(1)(B). Petitioner represents that it has been sued for infringement of the 201 Patent by Patent Owner in CoreLogic Information Solutions, Inc. v. Redfin Corporation, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-305 (E.D. Texas). THE 201 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001) Noting that traditional statistical techniques, such as multiple linear regression and logistical regression, have been tried in the past, the 201 Patent identifies uncertainty as to the optimal temporal and geographical sample size among the difficulties of applying a regression model to the appraisal problem. Ex. 1001, co1. 1, l col. 2, l. 16. The 201 Patent addresses these problems with a model development component and a property valuation component 3
4 implemented on a computer. Id. at col. 6, ll Using predictive modeling techniques, such as neural networks and regression modeling, the model development component uses training data describing a number of real estate properties, characteristics, and prices to build models containing information representing learned relationships among a number of variables and to develop error models, which are typically regression models, to estimate error in predicted sales prices. Id. at col. 6, ll The property valuation component feeds input data describing the subject property and its geographic area to the neural network models and error models to generate price estimates, error ranges, and other codes to be output to a display device, printer, or database for future access. Id. at col. 6, ll Challenged independent claims 3, 7 and 14 are method claims. Claim 3 is similar to claim 1 with the additional steps of developing and storing lower and higher percentile error models and, responsive to those models, generating signals representing an upper bound and lower bound of the property being appraised. Independent claim 7 recites an iterative process that includes applying the input data to a predictive model and ranking the results based on a measure of quality. Claim 14 recites a similar method in which a relative contribution for each element of the appraised property is determined, and a signal for a code for each contributing element is generated. Claims are apparatus claims. Independent claim 15 recites a system with training data and area data input means, individual property input means, a model development component, which trains the predictive model, and coupling to the predictive model. Dependent claim 17 recites the added limitation that the modeling component trains an error model. Dependent claim 19 recites that the modeling component trains an upper and lower percentile error model. 4
5 Claim 15 is illustrative: ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 15. A system for appraising a real estate property, comprising: a predictive model for determining an appraised value for the real estate property; training data input means, coupled to the predictive model, for obtaining training data; training data aggregation means, coupled to the training data input means, for aggregating the training data into training data sets, each training data set describing a plurality of sales within a geographic area; a model development component, coupled to the predictive model, for training the predictive model from the training data; a storage device for storing the trained predictive model; individual property data input means, coupled to the predictive model, for obtaining individual property data and sending the individual property data to the predictive model; area data input means, coupled to the individual property data input means and to the predictive model, for selecting a geographic area surrounding the real estate property, obtaining area data, and sending the area data to the predictive model; and an output device, coupled to the predictive model, for generating a signal indicative of the appraised value. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We apply the same constructions as those we applied in CBM We note the 201 Patent is expired and that these are the same constructions applied by the district court in CoreLogic Information Solutions, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-132-RSP (E.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2012). 5
6 101 SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY In CBM , a major point emphasized by Patent Owner is that the claims of the 201 Patent recite a computer-implemented method. Patent Owner reiterates that argument with respect method claims 2-14 in this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6. Patent Owner also argues that claims 15-20, which are drawn to a system, recite a different statutory class of claims under 35 U.S.C Id. at 4. The fact that a claim relies on a method that is implemented on a computer is not a per-se indicator of patentability. Rather, a challenged claim, properly construed, must incorporate enough meaningful limitations to ensure that what is claimed is more than just an abstract idea and is not a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize [an abstract idea] itself. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012). In order for a machine to impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of a method claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int l Trade Comm n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Claims that recite a method of doing business on a computer, and do no more than merely recite the use of the computer for its ordinary function of performing repetitive calculations, are not patent eligible. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding computer used for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculation, does not impose a meaningful claim limitation). Our inquiry is directed to whether the claims involve an intangible abstract concept and, if so, whether meaningful limitations in the claim make it clear that the claim is not to the abstract idea itself, but to a non-routine application of the idea. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1349 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 6
7 A claim is not patent eligible if, instead of claiming an application of an abstract idea, the claim instead is drawn to the abstract idea itself. Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at In CBM , we held that the claimed development of a model to predict a value for a real estate property and an error model to assess the error range around the predicted value, as recited in claims 1 and 10, is an abstract concept. Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM , slip op. at Similarly, we held that claims 6 and 9, which recite limitations that bound the geographic area from which data is obtained to develop the model, recite the abstract and well-known concept of examining the geographic area around the subject property so that relevant samples can be obtained to predict the price of the property. Id. Challenged claim 2 further limits claim 1 by reciting that the error model is a regression model. Further limiting claim 1 to such a well-known modeling technique does not render claim 2 any less abstract than the method recited in claim 1. Thus, we are persuaded it is more likely than not that claim 2 recites subject matter that is not patentable under 35 U.S.C We reach a similar conclusion with respect to claim 11, which depends from claim 10, and also recites that the error model is a regression model. Independent claim 3 and dependent claim 4 recite a method similar to that of claim 1 with the added feature that the error model developed is an upper and lower percentile model (claim 3) and is implemented as a neural network (claim 4). Characterizing the error as a fixed number, a percent or a percentile, merely defines the type of output number. The type of output from the error model recited in claim 3, as recited in claim 4, does not change the abstract nature of using an error model with a predictive model to assess a possible range around the 7
8 predictive model s result. The 201 Patent describes a neural network as one in which a number of interconnected neuron-like processing elements send data to each other along connections whose strengths are represented by weights. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll The model learns from examples by repeating input/output tasks, comparing the output to a desired output to measure error, and adjusting the weights to reduce the error. Id. at col. 7, ll Using real estate information as inputs to this well-known modeling approach to produce property appraisals merely limits the abstract modeling to the field of real estate appraisal, and is not an improvement to neural networking itself. Limiting an abstract modeling concept to a particular field of use alone does not result in patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 3 and 4 recite subject matter that is not patentable under 35 U.S.C Independent claim 7 recites a method of appraising real estate using a model similar to that recited in claim 1, but applies some of the steps in developing the predictive model iteratively to rank, qualitatively, the outputs and adjust the model. Claim 7 merely recites the abstract concept of repeating the appraisal process to refine the model, but does not recite any steps that render the modeling less abstract and does not recite patentable subject matter. Where claim 4 recites a neural network model, dependent claim 8, which depends from claim 7, recites the individual steps described in the 201 Patent specification as implementing a neural network model. Thus, for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to claim 4, we are persuaded that it is more likely than not that claim 8 recites subject matter that is not patentable under 35 U.S.C For the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to claims 3 and 4, we are persuaded that it is more likely than not that Petitioner will succeed in 8
9 demonstrating that claims 12 and 13, respectively, do not recite patentable subject matter. Claim 14 recites a method similar to that of claim 1, with the added limitations that the relative contributions of elements of the individual property that contribute to determining its appraised value are identified and coded. Generating a signal indicative of the reason code does not alter the abstract nature of the model itself. Generating such a signal provides the model the ability to produce an additional output display for the user, but does not render the process of appraising real estate any less abstract. Therefore, we are persuaded that Petitioner will more likely than not succeed at demonstrating that claim 14 recites subject matter that is not patentable under 35 U.S.C Claims are system claims. The specification of the 201 Patent describes the system as a having a central processing unit (CPU) that, in a conventional manner, accepts input from input device 105, uses program and data storage memory, and provides signals to an output device. Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 59- col. 4, l. 31. These elements operate together to provide neural network models for appraisal as well as error models for generating error ranges for the appraised values. Id. at col. 2, ll The 201 Patent does not disclose any unconventional computing hardware. The specification also discloses that regression models and neural networks discussed in the specification are conventional. Id. at col.5, ll , col. 6, ll As discussed above, the 201 Patent discloses a model development component using training data 904 to build the model, e.g., a neural network model, and property valuation component 902 that feeds input data describing property 905 and geographic area data 906 to the predictive model and the error model. Ex. 1001, col. 6, l. 33 col. 11, l. 60 9
10 (discussing the model development component); id. at col. 11, l. 61 col. 14, l. 58 (discussing the property valuation component). Claim 15 recites that the model development component is coupled to the predictive model. The recited predictive model is used for determining an appraised value of real estate and is coupled to a training input means. We understand the corresponding structure for training input means, individual property data input means, and the area data input means recited in claim 15 to be input device 205. We understand the training data aggregation means coupled to the training data input means to be in CPU 101. Claim 15 does not recite any particular form of coupling or provide any details of the coupling. Thus, the coupling recited in claim 15 is a functional limitation that relates to providing information between the coupled elements, such as programming in CPU 101. Although it is possible for a programmed device to constitute patentable subject matter, we are persuaded that is not the case with respect to claim 15 of the 201 Patent. As previously discussed, we are persuaded that the models themselves are abstractions that are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. The limitations in claim 15 that recite coupling between the models, or between various elements of the models, are functional input-output limitations that do not contribute patentable subject matter. Thus, we are persuaded that it is more likely than not that claim 15 recites subject matter that is not patentable under 35 U.S.C We reach a similar conclusion with respect to system claims Claim 16 recites a neural network, which, as we discussed above, more likely than not does not add patentable subject matter. Claim 17 recites an error model, and claim 18 limits the error model to a regression model, which, as discussed above, more likely than not does not contribute patentable subject matter. Claim 19 is similar to 10
11 claims 3 and 4, but in the context of a system recites coupling between the models. As discussed with respect to claim 15, the recitation of such coupling more likely than not does not provide patentable subject matter. Claim 20 recites neural network models with percentile limitations on the error model. For the same reasons as discussed above, this combination of claim elements more likely than not does not recite patentable subject matter. SUMMARY The Petition is GRANTED as to the grounds asserted that claims 2-4, 7, 8, and are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C The Petition is DISMISSED as moot as to the ground asserted against claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 101; and The Petition is DISMISSED as moot as to the grounds asserted against claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is granted FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 324(a) a covered business method patent review of the 201 Patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 324(d) and 37 C.F.R. 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial. FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds identified in the above Summary, and no other grounds are authorized. 11
12 FURTHER ORDERED than an initial conference call with the Board is scheduled for 2:00 PM Eastern Time on April 23, The parties are directed to the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48, (Aug. 14, 2012) for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the scheduling order entered herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial. 12
13 PETITIONER: Richard T. Black Joel B. Ard FOSTER PEPPER, PLLC PATENT OWNER: W. Karl Renner David L. Holt Thomas A. Rozylowicz 13
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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. Petitioner FIFTH MARKET INC.
Paper No. Filed: January 14, 2015 Filed on behalf of: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. By: Erika H. Arner Timothy P. McAnulty FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Telephone: 202-408-4000
More informationCase 2:13-cv WCB Document 129 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 2214
Case 2:13-cv-00655-WCB Document 129 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 2214 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION LOYALTY CONVERSION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
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 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 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 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: 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 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: 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 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 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 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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BANCORP SERVICES, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (U.S.), Defendant-Appellee, AND ANALECT LLC, Defendant. 2011-1467
More informationPatent Trial and Appeal Board. State of the Board
Patent Trial and Appeal Board State of the Board USPTO Locations 2 Judge Members of the Board 250 Judges 225 231 200 150 170 178 100 50 0 81 68 47 5 5 9 13 13 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
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 informationOutcome: Method claims invalid; judgment of invalidity of system claims affirmed by an equally divided court.
SELECTED 2013 SECTION 101 CASES Daralyn Durie, Durie Tangri CLS Bank Intern. v. Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (May 10). Claim 33 of the 479 patent: A method of exchanging obligations
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 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 informationUNITED 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 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 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 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 informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 59 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:392
Case: 1:13-cv-03094 Document #: 59 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:392 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ELENA FRIDMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 13 C 03094
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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-1913 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Filed: 07/27/2017 (1 of 12) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
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: 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 informationIN 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 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 informationHowell v. Commissioner TC Memo
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Howell v. Commissioner TC Memo 2012-303 MARVEL, Judge MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION Respondent mailed to petitioners a notice of deficiency dated December
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
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 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 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 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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and TRADSTATION SECURITIES, INC., Petitioners v. TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
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 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 informationUnited 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[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 informationTreatment of Business Method Patents in Pending Patent Reform Legislation: Bilski Backlash? BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal July 15, 2011
Treatment of Business Method Patents in Pending Patent Reform Legislation: Bilski Backlash? BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal July 15, 2011 REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617.489.0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SECURE AXCESS, LLC,
Case: 16-1353 Document: 146 Page: 1 Filed: 04/20/2017 Case No. 16-1353 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SECURE AXCESS, LLC, v. Appellant, PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, U.S. BANK
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-30849 Document: 00514799581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED January 17, 2019 NICOLE
More informationAPPLICATION 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, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant, APPLE INC., Appellee.
Case: 15-1159 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/13/2015 2015-1159, 2015-1160 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Appellant, APPLE INC., Appellee.
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00226-CV Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Appellant v. Linda Puglisi, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 106-cv-00606-SHR Document 23 Filed 06/22/2006 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AEGIS SECURITY INSURANCE Civil No. 1CV-06-0606 COMPANY, JUDGE
More informationCase 4:11-cv Document 212 Filed in TXSD on 04/24/15 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:11-cv-02830 Document 212 Filed in TXSD on 04/24/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Visa Inc. Petitioner. Leon Stambler Patent Owner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Visa Inc. Petitioner v. Leon Stambler Patent Owner Patent No. 5,793,302 Filing Date: November 12, 1996 Issue Date: August
More informationDeference Runs Deep. The Ill Effects of Alice By Brooks Kenyon Under 35 U.S.C 101, a patent must be either a new and useful process,
Deference Runs Deep The Ill Effects of Alice By Brooks Kenyon Under 35 U.S.C 101, a patent must be either a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and, thus, must not lay
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 informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ROBERT LIPPOLIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2017-104 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT LIPPOLIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 18172-12W. Filed June 7, 2017. Thomas C. Pliske, for petitioner. Ashley
More informationUnited 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 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 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 information137 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. KENNETH WILLIAM KASPER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
137 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT KENNETH WILLIAM KASPER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13399-10W. Filed July 12, 2011. On Jan. 29, 2009, P filed with R a claim
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 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 informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION 06-S-200, 06-S-201, 06-S-202 AND 07-S-45 DAVID C. SWANSON, COMMISSIONER:
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION BADGER STATE ETHANOL, LLC, DOCKET NOS. 06-S-199, 06-S-200, 06-S-201, 06-S-202 AND 07-S-45 Petitioner, vs. RULING AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent.
More informationA (800) (800)
No. 17-1229 In the Supreme Court of the United States Helsinn Healthcare S.A., Petitioner, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals usa, inc., et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationDay to Day Dealings with the SEC: Registration Statement Comments; Exemptive Relief; and No- Action Letters
Day to Day Dealings with the SEC: Registration Statement Comments; Exemptive Relief; and No- Action Letters Eric S. Purple December 15, 2011 Investment Company Interaction with the SEC Investment companies
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., Petitioners v. TRADING
More informationLead Judge Michael Tierney, Covered Business Method Patent Review United States Patent and Trademark Office Alexandria, VA 22313
April 10, 2012 Submitted Via Electronic Mail: TPCBMP_Rules@uspto.gov; TPCMBP_Definition@uspto.gov; & patent_trial_rules@uspto.gov Attention: Lead Judge Michael Tierney, Covered Business Method Patent Review
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. v. Case No. 6:10-cv-23 ALIENWARE CORP., ET AL.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INTERNET MACHINES LLC v. Case No. 6:10-cv-23 ALIENWARE CORP., ET AL. ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL Before the Court is Plaintiff
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: US FIDELIS, INC., Debtor. ) ) ) ) ) ) In Proceedings Under Chapter 11 Case No. 10-41902-705 FINAL APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE
More informationWestlaw Journal INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Westlaw Journal INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME XX, ISSUE XX / MONTH XX, 2016 EXPERT ANALYSIS Sequenom, Alice and Mayo in 2016 By Jennifer
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-9509 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54863 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationreporter 2017 Analysis ON PTAB contested proceedings introduction
edition 3 no. reporter NEW SURVEY 2017 Analysis ON PTAB contested proceedings postgranthq.com fitzpatrick, cella, harper & scinto introduction Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto undertook this Report
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 information140 T.C. No. 8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT
140 T.C. No. 8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WISE GUYS HOLDINGS, LLC, PETER J. FORSTER, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 6643-12. Filed April 22, 2013.
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. EDWARD S. FLUME, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2017-21 UNITED STATES TAX COURT EDWARD S. FLUME, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent Docket No. 15772-14L. Filed January 30, 2017. David Rodriguez, for petitioner.
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 07/22/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0138n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0138n.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NETJETS INC.; COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, INTELLIJET GROUP, LLC, dba
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 15-CV-837 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THOMAS MAVROFF, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-CV-837 KOHN LAW FIRM S.C. and DAVID A. AMBROSH, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
More informationU.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 In the Matter of: ANTONIO ANDREWS, ARB CASE NO. 06-071 NIQUEL BARRON, COMPLAINANTS, ALJ CASE NOS.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Turner et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 DAMON G. TURNER and KRISTINE A. TURNER, v. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 10, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00769-CV DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee On Appeal from
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 16 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 16 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD.
More informationPatent 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 informationCHAPTER 1. Overview of the AIA. Chapter Contents. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No , 125 Stat. 284 (2011). 2
CHAPTER 1 Overview of the AIA Chapter Contents 1.01 Generally 1.02 History of the AIA 1.03 Effective Dates for the AIA Enactments 1.01 Generally The America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law in 2011,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No Honorable Patrick J. Duggan FIRST BANK OF DELAWARE,
Case 2:10-cv-11345-PJD-MJH Document 12 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 7 ANTHONY O. WILSON, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Case No. 10-11345 Honorable
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 informationCase: 4:16-cv AGF Doc. #: 24 Filed: 02/15/17 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 98
Case: 4:16-cv-01638-AGF Doc. #: 24 Filed: 02/15/17 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER KLEIN, individually and on behalf of
More information153 FERC 61,248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
153 FERC 61,248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark, Tilden Mining Company L.C. and Empire Iron
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 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 informationDavid Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-24-2013 David Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More information