SEARCH

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

Friday, July 18, 2014

aevoe, motorola

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Kandogan et al 11928810 - (D) ASTORINO 102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP PENG, HUAWEN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Jungermann et al 11470073 - (D) KRATZ 102(e)/103 Miles & Stockbridge, PC VO, TUYEN KIM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Brooks Rix 10861912 - (D) LORIN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Zhou et al 09953327 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(a)/103 THOMSON Licensing LLC HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2487 Ex Parte Morad et al 10887950 - (D) HOMERE 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation DIEP, NHON THANH

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte GROSS 11565352 - (D) KIM 103 Law Office of J. Nicholas Gross, Prof. Corp. CHEEMA, AZAM M

DENIED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09832440 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 Steve Morsa OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

DISMISSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 6,335,488 09/603,756 2013-1357 HUGHES dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Crowell & Moring LLP; Alan Anderson Law Firm LLC original AUZVILLE JACKSON, JR. ESTRADA, ANGEL R

The focus of the clarification-or-modification analysis is whether there were changes to the original injunction
that “actually altered the legal relationship between the parties.” Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., 727 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Motorola, Inc. v. Computer Displays, Int’l, Inc., 739 F.2d 1149, 1155 (7th Cir. 1984). Because clauses of both injunctions are almost identical in wording and are congruent in meaning, the legal relationship between the parties is not altered.