Search for: "IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC "
Results 1 - 20
of 43
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Nov 2014, 9:59 pm
Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC (Patent Owner), but the appeal was fashioned as "In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC" because Garmin withdrew from the appeal. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 9:59 pm
As we have previously reported, the In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. case was the first appeal of the first IPR Final Written Decision for the first IPR ever filed. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 9:59 pm
By James Lovsin and Andrew Williams -- Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in the In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC case. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 12:20 pm
--Forbes link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/02/11/patent-review-decision-brings-some-certainty-to-a-fast-changing-world/Some text from Forbes: On February 4, 2015, the federal appeals court tasked with hearing all appeals in patent matters issued a decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC that serves as a ray of hope that a unified effort to right the patent ship may finally be underway.(...)Having endorsed the Patent … [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 10:00 pm
In affirming the decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s use of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of the claims in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 3:32 pm
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
19 Jun 2016, 10:00 pm
The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in the case of In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 9:41 am
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 10:00 pm
In light of the In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. decision, however, its chances of obtaining a different result at the Supreme Court may be very slim. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 9:59 pm
By Andrew Williams -- As we have been reporting, the U.S. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 7:52 pm
The Administrative Law Requires Courts to Accept Jurisdiction to Review Agency Non-Compliance with its Own Regulations For example, last Wednesday, the Federal Circuit in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC ruled that the court has no jurisdiction to review decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) whether to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR). [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am
Petitions Granted: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:40 am
Apple Inc., No 15-777 (design patent damages calculation) Argued: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
, No. 14-1520 (enhanced damages) (linked to Halo) Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 6:41 am
Oracle Corp (15-1014) with instructions to the Federal Circuit to reconsider its prior decision in light of the recently decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 12:25 pm
Zimmer, Inc., 14-1520 (enhanced damages) (linked to Halo) Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 11:15 am
Cir. 2014) (several issues, including means-plus-function) In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. [read post]
18 May 2016, 8:19 am
Apple Inc., No 15-777 (design patent damages calculation) Argued: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 1:03 pm
Note the law review article THREE HUNDRED NOS: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST 300+ DENIALS OF INSTITUTION FOR INTER PARTES AND COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEWS PRIOR TO IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 14 J. [read post]
4 May 2016, 12:46 pm
This led to the Supreme Court hearing of Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
