Case: Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/ (Application No. 13/294,044) IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA,
|
|
- Michael Craig
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/ (Application No. 13/294,044) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA, Appellants. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. USPTO S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC THOMAS W. KRAUSE Deputy Solicitor ROBERT J. MCMANUS BENJAMIN HICKMAN Associate Solicitors Office of the Solicitor U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop 8, P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia (571) September 28, 2018 Attorneys for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
2 Case: Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 09/28/2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE... 1 ARGUMENT... 2 CONCLUSION i
3 Case: Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 09/28/2018 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int l, 134 S. Ct (2014)... passim Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018)... 7 Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)... 2, 4, 6 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)... 3, 6 Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., No , 2018 WL (Fed. Cir. Jul. 16, 2018)... 7 buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)... 5, 7 Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat l Ass n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)... 4 Eberra, In re, 730 F. App x 916 (Fed. Cir. 2018)... 7 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)... 9 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)... 4, 5 Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corp., Inc., 726 F. App x 797 (Fed. Cir. 2018)... 7 Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)... 3, 6, 9, 10 ii
4 Case: Document: 58 Page: 4 Filed: 09/28/2018 Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018)... 5 OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)... 3, 5, 7, 10 SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, L.L.C., 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)... 4, 7 Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) TLI Commc ns LLC Patent Litig., In re, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)... 4 iii
5 Case: Document: 58 Page: 5 Filed: 09/28/2018 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Villena s claimed system uses generic computers to run algorithms that estimate real property values and to distribute those values. Villena did not invent the recited algorithms known as automated valuation method or AVM or even a new type of AVM. Villena s specification states that AVMs had been used in the real estate industry to estimate values for at least a decade at the time the application was filed and that users of the claimed system can employ any of those known AVMs. Villena s claims do not recite a technological improvement to the recited generic computer functionality. Villena simply uses computers to do what computers do run algorithms, store data, display it, etc. for real estate estimates. The Examiner accordingly rejected claims in Application No. 13/294,044 ( the 044 application ) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as reciting unpatentable subject matter. See Appx The Board affirmed the 101 rejection in its initial decision and upon rehearing. See Appx29-35; Appx1-8. This Court, in a non-precedential decision, affirmed the 101 conclusion. 1 The non-precedential decision here affirming the 101 conclusion does not merit rehearing by the panel or the entire Court. The decision neither breaks new 1 In a prior appeal, this Court affirmed without opinion the USPTO s rejection of similar claims for distributing real estate information in particular, AVM values on multiple bases, including 101. See In re Villena, No , ECF No. 87 (Oct. 13, 2016). 1
6 Case: Document: 58 Page: 6 Filed: 09/28/2018 ground in 101 jurisprudence nor runs afoul of it. Villena s rehearing petition, which inappropriately seeks to reargue the initial appeal, should be denied. ARGUMENT The decision here addresses the patent eligibility inquiry as a question of law and reviews it de novo, as have prior decisions from the Supreme Court and this Court. See Op See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365, rehearing en banc denied, 890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The panel correctly articulates the two-step framework for determining whether recited subject matter passes 101 scrutiny articulated by the Supreme Court s Alice decision. Op. 3. First, we must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea. Op. 3-4 (citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)). Second, if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we must consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Op. 4 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357) (internal quotations omitted). Applying Alice step one, the panel decision concludes that Villena s claims recite a fundamental economic practice, specifically the familiar concept of 2 The Court s non-precedential panel decision is cited here as Op. Villena s rehearing petition is cited as Pet. The Director s merits brief is cited as RB. 2
7 Case: Document: 58 Page: 7 Filed: 09/28/2018 property valuation. Op. 4. The decision explains that this conclusion follows from the claims similarity to other methods for organizing human activity that were identified in Alice and Bilski as involving a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. Op. 4 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010))). Both the Supreme Court and this Court have endorsed the type of analysis conducted here under the Alice step one inquiry. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at ; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72 (2012); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2015). Villena s specification admits that those in the real estate industry have been estimating property values long before the application here was filed, yet Villena asserts that rehearing is required because the panel failed to cite factual evidence from the record to support its conclusion under Alice step one. Pet No decision either from this Court or the Supreme Court holds that Alice step one requires a court to provide a pinpoint citation to the record to identify something as a fundamental economic practice, and certainly not when the fundamental nature of that economic practice is indisputable. Even in Alice, where step one was disputed, the Court did not require record evidence to support its abstract idea conclusion. Pet. 7. The Court is an appellate body whose review is limited to the record below, and the Federal Circuit s en banc 3
8 Case: Document: 58 Page: 8 Filed: 09/28/2018 judgment affirmed by the Court in Alice did not cite to record evidence to support the conclusion that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at Rather, the Court explained that it follows from our prior cases, and Bilski in particular, that the claims at issue here are directed to an abstract idea. Id. The two textbooks and one scholarly article (only one of which was prior art) were offered by the Court only as examples of the conclusion, (e.g., [t]he use of a thirdparty intermediary (or clearing house ) is also a building block of the modern economy ). Id. Villena erroneously suggests that Berkheimer holds that there must be evidence supporting a conclusion under Alice step one. Pet This Court in Berkheimer held that Alice step two could contain underlying disputed questions of fact, but engaged in the same type of legal analysis when it addressed Alice step one as that employed by the panel here. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at (affirming the Alice step one conclusion because [t]hese claims are similar to claims we held directed to an abstract idea in prior cases, discussing In re TLI Commc ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat l Ass n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, like Berkheimer, this Court routinely affirms a lower tribunal s holding under Alice step one without requiring citation to record evidence. See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, L.L.C., 898 F.3d 1161, (Fed. Cir. 2018); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 4
9 Case: Document: 58 Page: 9 Filed: 09/28/2018 F.3d 1363, (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at ; buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App x 950, (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (affirming summary judgment holding that claims reciting method for collecting and organizing information about available real estate properties and displaying this information on a digital map embody abstract idea). Even if there could be a case where the Alice step one analysis required reliance on record evidence, this is not that case. Villena s specification admits that AVMs had been used to estimate real property values for nearly a decade when the subject application was filed. Appx7 (quoting Appx741 ( 15)). Villena s specification teaches that an artisan can use any of the known AVMs for that purpose. See Appx747 ( 36). And it is beyond genuine debate that individuals have been estimating the value of property whether real or intellectual, in their minds or using computer-implemented algorithms for many years, because that is how commerce works. Op. 4; see Appx33. This case is thus a poor vehicle for entertaining any changes to this area of the law. The non-precedential decision here also comports with settled precedent on Alice step two. The decision assesses whether the limitations in claim 57, either individually or as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Op. 4-5 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 5
10 Case: Document: 58 Page: 10 Filed: 09/28/ , which quotes Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78)). Contrary to Villena s suggestion that the panel decision ignores limitations in claim 57 (Pet. 8-9), the decision acknowledges the claims basic steps of receiving user input, producing property valuations, and providing display information as well as the pre-processing limitations upon which Villena focuses in their Petition and correctly concludes that the limitations present a classic case of implementing an abstract idea on a computer, which is not eligible under Alice as a matter of law. Op. 5; Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ( These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. ); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82 ( [S]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable. ); Bilski, 561 U.S. at Villena incorrectly protests that the decision here violates Berkheimer by failing to identify evidence supporting the Alice step two conclusion. Pet The decision here correctly observes that, per Berkheimer, [n]ot every 101 determination contains genuine disputes regarding underlying facts material to the 101 inquiry. Op. 5 (citing Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368). So it is here. There are no genuine disputes here on any possible factual questions under Alice step two. Pet. 6; see Op. 6 ( Applicants do not point to any unresolved factual disputes on Alice step two); ECF No. 37 (USPTO FRAP 28(j) response to Villena s post-briefing letter citing 6
11 Case: Document: 58 Page: 11 Filed: 09/28/2018 Berkheimer). Villena concede[d] before the Board that the claimed invention uses general purpose computers. Appx5-6; see Appx20. The plain claim language and specification confirm that the claimed invention uses standard, routine computer technology to implement the abstract idea of estimating property values, whether to generate values, store values, update data, display values on a map, etc. See Appx3-6; Appx743 ( 20-21). Thus, the Court here correctly concludes that Alice compels the conclusion that using a computer to perform routine computer activity does not impart subject matter eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Op. 5. Moreover, the conclusion here is consistent with scores of decisions (both before and after Berkheimer was decided on February 8, 2018) recognizing that the Alice step two inquiry may not involve any factual disputes. See, e.g., SAP America, 898 F.3d at ; Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., No , 2018 WL (Fed. Cir. Jul. 16, 2018) (non-precedential); In re Eberra, 730 F. App x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential); Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corp., Inc., 726 F. App x 797, (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential); Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App x 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2018); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at ; buysafe, 765 F.3d at For many of these same reasons, the two precedent-setting question[s] of exceptional importance proffered by Villena for en banc consideration are not implicated by this decision. Pet. 1. The non-precedential decision here did not hold 7
12 Case: Document: 58 Page: 12 Filed: 09/28/2018 or suggest that the USPTO need not comply with the APA in making 101 rejections. Id. As an initial matter, the issues reflected in Villena s first question such as whether the USPTO failed to supply evidence for any fact-bound questions in the 101 analysis here go to the merits of Villena s appeal from the Board. The non-precedential decision here rejected those challenges to the extent properly raised during merits briefing. See, e.g., Op. 5 ( Nor are we persuaded by Applicants argument that the Board failed to provide substantial evidence to support its [ 101] rejection. ). En banc rehearing is not a mechanism for receiving a second merits appeal of these types of case-specific grievances. In any event, the USPTO s patent-eligibility analysis comports with the law. First, the USPTO addressed all relevant claim limitations, both individually and collectively. Pet.4-5. See, e.g., RB at 15-18; Appx4-7; Appx32-35; Appx Second, there are no genuinely disputed questions of fact requiring substantial evidence on Alice step two, as already discussed. Granting rehearing en banc to address whether implementing an abstract idea using known computer technology recites patent eligible subject matter is also unnecessary. Pet. 1, Contrary to Villena s suggestion, neither the non-precedential decision of this Court nor the USPTO Board decision here holds that claims using computers are, per se, patent ineligible. Alice makes clear that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract 8
13 Case: Document: 58 Page: 13 Filed: 09/28/2018 idea into a patent-eligible invention. 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (discussing precedent like Mayo, Benson, Flook, and Diehr) (emphasis added). Alice also distinguishes between the patent-ineligible use of generic computer technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea (as in Alice), and the potentially patent-eligible recitation of improvements to the functionality of computer technology. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). These issues as they pertain to Villena s claims were explored during the administrative proceedings and on appeal; the panel correctly concludes that the computer technology limitations in Villena s claims, either considered individually or collectively, simply recite an abstract idea executed using computer technology and are thus ineligible under 101. Op. 5; see, e.g., RB at 17-23; Appx5-6 (explaining why Villena s claims are unlike those, for example, in Enfish). Lastly, Villena incorrectly asserts that the non-precedential decision contravenes Alice because it completely decouples preemption from the exceptions to patent eligibility. Pet. 2, The Supreme Court explained in Mayo that the preemption concern reflected in the 101 inquiry is a relative one: how much future innovation is foreclosed relative to the contribution of the inventor. Mayo, 566 U.S. at (observing that even narrow applications of patent-ineligible subject matter nevertheless impermissibly inhibit future research). The Court made clear that patent eligibility does not turn on how broadly or narrowly the subject 9
14 Case: Document: 58 Page: 14 Filed: 09/28/2018 claims may preempt. Id.; see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at Mayo explained that the question is whether the additional features provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77. The Court in Alice recognized that its application of patent-ineligibility principles to claims like those here reciting an abstract idea with instructions to simply implement it using generic computer technology accords with the pre-emption concern that undergirds our 101 jurisprudence. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; see also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ( When a patent s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter..., preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. ). This remains true whether or not the deciding court expressly discusses preemption principles. By extension, the Supreme Court and this Court have both recognized that proper application of 101 principles does not turn on the application of either 102 or 103. See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89-90; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The panel decision here abides by the law on
15 Case: Document: 58 Page: 15 Filed: 09/28/2018 CONCLUSION The non-precedential decision of this Court in this case does not conflict with governing precedent. And Villena fails to identify a question of exceptional importance mandating the consideration of the full Court. The request for rehearing should be denied. Respectfully submitted, September 28, 2018 /s/ Robert J. McManus THOMAS W. KRAUSE Deputy Solicitor ROBERT J. MCMANUS BENJAMIN HICKMAN Associate Solicitors Office of the Solicitor U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop 8 P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia robert.mcmanus@uspto.gov Attorneys for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 11
16 Case: Document: 58 Page: 16 Filed: 09/28/2018 RULE 32(g) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(g) that the foregoing USPTO S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC complies with the type-volume limitation required by the Court s rule. The total number of words in the foregoing response is 2,456 words as calculated using the Word software program. /s/ Robert J. McManus Robert J. McManus Associate Solicitor U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
17 Case: Document: 58 Page: 17 Filed: 09/28/2018 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 28, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing USPTO S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC using the Court s CM/ECF filing system. Counsel for appellant was electronically served by and through the Court s CM/ECF filing system per Fed. Cir. R. 25(e). /s/ Robert J. McManus Robert J. McManus Associate Solicitor Office of the Solicitor U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop 8 P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia robert.mcmanus@uspto.gov
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-2382 Document: 71 Filed: 08/08/2017 Page: 1 No. 15-2382 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JACK REESE; FRANCES ELAINE PIDDE; JAMES CICHANOFSKY; ROGER MILLER; GEORGE NOWLIN,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2011-1301 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, and CLS SERVICES LTD., Counterclaim-Defendant Appellee, v. ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Nos. 2015-1080, -1081, -1082, -1083, -1084, -1085, -1086, -1087, -1088, -1089, -1090, -1092, -1093, -1094, -1095, -1096, -1097, -1098, -1099, -1100, -1101 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
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 informationIn 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 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 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 informationby Tyler Maddry Published in Aspatore Books: Intellectual Property Licensing Strategies 2016 (excerpted)
April 2016 Chapter The Shifting Subject Matter of IP Licensing in the Information Age: Maximizing the Licensor s Asset Monetization while Facilitating the Licensee s Success Published in Aspatore Books:
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationResponse to Notice of Roundtables and Request for Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
January 18, 2017 The Honorable Michelle K. Lee Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop Patent Board P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria,
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 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 informationThe Latest in The 101 Saga: Sequenom Petitions the Federal Circuit to Reconsider
The Latest in The 101 Saga: Sequenom Petitions the Federal Circuit to Reconsider by Konstantin Linnik, Ph.D., Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP The Federal Circuit's Ariosa v. Sequenom decision issued earlier
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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-4001 KARL SCHMIDT UNISIA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1271 Document #1714908 Filed: 01/26/2018 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Appalachian Voices, et al., ) Petitioners, ) ) No. 17-1271
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1085 In the Supreme Court of the United States FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
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 informationUnited 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 informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Pending is plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company s motion for
Case 6:13-cv-01178-GLS-TWD Document 99 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, 6:13-cv-1178 (GLS/TWD) CLEARWATER
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROX-ANN REIFER, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee No. 321 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order
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 informationAlfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-12-2014 Alfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 16-1499 Document: 83-1 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2017 No. 2016-1499 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Appeal No: 2016-1499 RECOGNICORP, LLC Plaintiff-Appellant V. NINTENDO CO., LTD
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 informationPhilip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2013 Philip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MORRIS SHELKOFSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5083 Appeal from the
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 information2018 PA Super 45. Appeal from the Order entered March 29, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No: CT
2018 PA Super 45 WILLIAM SMITH SR. AND EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN HEMPHILL AND COMMERCIAL SNOW + ICE, LLC APPEAL OF BARRY M. ROTHMAN, ESQUIRE No. 1351
More informationUNITED 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 informationUnited 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 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 informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2986 Lower Tribunal No. 99-993 Mario Gonzalez,
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Case: 12-54 Document: 001113832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Entry ID: 2173182 No. 12-054 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT In re LOUIS B. BULLARD, Debtor LOUIS B. BULLARD,
More informationCase 3:08-cv BHS Document 210 Filed 11/21/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :0-cv-0-BHS Document 0 Filed // Page of HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION,
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 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 informationSupreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. (202) 789-0096 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS... 1 I. OTHER
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 informationIN 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, 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 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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 16-3541 FIN ASSOCIATES LP; SB MILLTOWN ASSOCIATES LP; LAWRENCE S. BERGER; ROUTE 88 OFFICE ASSOCIATES LTD; SB BUILDING ASSOCIATES
More informationCase: Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/ (Serial No. 12/426,034) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-2525 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2017 2016-2525 (Serial No. 12/426,034) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE BHAGAT APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
More informationUnited 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 informationCase , Document 180, 06/09/2016, , Page1 of 16. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
Case 14-3648, Document 180, 06/09/2016, 1790425, Page1 of 16 14-3648-cv In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, CORP, as Receiver for Colonial
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ***************************************** * DR. CARL BERNOFSKY * CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff * NO. 98:-1577 * VERSUS * * SECTION "C"(5) TEACHERS
More informationRyan 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 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 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 informationPegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich
Pegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich More than a third of all Americans receive their healthcare through employersponsored managed care plans; that is, through plans subject to ERISA.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 17-10238 Document: 00514003289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEAKER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2013 v No. 313983 Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 00-431800 Respondent-Appellee. Before:
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1789 CAPITOL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, NATIONWIDE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE
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 FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-726 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-3370 COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida
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 informationUNITED 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 informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 SABIR A. RAHMAN. JACOB GEESING et al.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2217 September Term, 2015 SABIR A. RAHMAN v. JACOB GEESING et al. Nazarian, Beachley, Davis, Arrie W. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
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 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 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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MICHELLE A. SAYLES, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee. No. 4D17-1324 [December 5, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-757 In the Supreme Court of the United States DOMICK NELSON, PETITIONER v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
More informationFederal Circuit Narrows Patent Misuse Doctrine and Provides Guidance to Patent Pools
September 2, 2010 Federal Circuit Narrows Patent Misuse Doctrine and Provides Guidance to Patent Pools By Sean Gates and Joshua Hartman In January of this year, we alerted clients to the potential implications
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 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 informationShould Entrepreneurs Care About Patent Reform Concerning SM Eligibility?
Should Entrepreneurs Care About Patent Reform Concerning SM Eligibility? Miriam Bitton IP & Entrepreneurship Symposium, UC Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Mar. 7-8, 2008 OUTLINE Subject Matter Eligibility
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 15-1908 MASSACHUSETTS DELIVERY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MAURA T. HEALEY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth
More information