Untitled case

The case IPR2015-00489 involves a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The patent owner in this IPR is Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The petitioner challenging the patent's validity is Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, "Garmin"), which are operating companies known for their GPS technology and related products.

U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 is titled "Speedometer Having Both Absolute And Relative Speed Limits." The patent generally describes a speedometer that displays not only the current speed but also indicates when the vehicle's speed exceeds an absolute or a relative speed limit. This technology is relevant to navigation systems and vehicle speed monitoring.

This case, IPR2015-00489, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The prompt indicates it has reached a Final Written Decision. IPRs are administrative trials that provide a quicker and often more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. The PTAB applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for claim construction in IPRs, which has been a point of notable legal discussion.

This IPR is particularly notable due to its connection to a landmark Federal Circuit appeal, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, which was the Federal Circuit's first review of a Final Written Decision from an IPR proceeding. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision that claims of Cuozzo's patent were obvious and upheld the PTAB's use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. This ruling established critical precedents for IPRs regarding the unreviewability of institution decisions and the claim construction standard. The underlying dispute also highlights the assertion patterns of NPEs and the use of IPRs by operating companies to challenge patents asserted against them.

Despite a targeted search for IPR2015-00489 in conjunction with patent 7384177, specific details regarding the parties involved, the precise date, and the outcome of the Final Written Decision for this particular IPR could not be definitively identified. Similarly, no related district court patent infringement litigation directly involving patent 7384177 and linked to IPR2015-00489 was found within the scope of the web searches.

The search results provided general information about the PTAB IPR process, including instances of institution decisions, denials of institution, and the impact of IPRs on parallel district court litigation for other patents. For example, some results discussed IPRs involving Netlist v. Diablo Technologies concerning patents 7,881,150 and 8,081,536, and Apple v. WARF regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752, both from around the same period, but these do not align with patent 7384177 as specified in the prompt metadata. Another result mentioned IPR2015-00483, but for a different patent.

Without specific docket entries, party names, or a confirmed Final Written Decision linking IPR2015-00489 directly to patent 7384177, a chronological listing of legal developments and outcomes for this specific patent infringement litigation cannot be provided.

The plaintiff in this case, meaning the party challenging the patent, is Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, "Garmin").

During the Federal Circuit appeal in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, Garmin had settled with Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC and did not participate in the appeal. The USPTO continued as the appellee defending the PTAB's decision.

However, for the initial IPR proceeding (IPR2015-00489), the petition was prepared and filed on behalf of Garmin by Hovey Williams LLP. While specific individual attorneys from Hovey Williams LLP for this IPR are not explicitly named in the search results, it is noted that the firm filed "the very first petition ever filed for inter partes review" on behalf of Garmin.

Further details on individual counsel for Garmin at the PTAB specifically for IPR2015-00489 are not readily available in the provided search results. The Federal Circuit and Supreme Court opinions primarily list counsel for Cuozzo and the USPTO.

The case IPR2015-00489 involves Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC as the patent owner and Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. as the petitioners. The records available primarily discuss the representation during the subsequent appeals at the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court, rather than the initial PTAB proceedings.

Counsel for Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (Patent Owner/Appellant):

• Timothy M. Salmon

  • Role: Lead Counsel (at Federal Circuit)
  • Firm: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ.
  • Note: Argued for Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC at the Federal Circuit.

• John R. Kasha

  • Role: Of Counsel (at Federal Circuit), Counsel (for rehearing en banc)
  • Firm: Kasha Law LLC, North Potomac, MD.

• Lawrence Hersh

  • Role: Local Counsel (in related district court patent infringement cases)
  • Firm: N/A (practices in Federal Court, including District of New Jersey and Southern District of New York)
  • Note: Acted as local counsel for Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC in four related patent infringement cases in federal court concerning GPS technology, where defendants included Garmin, TomTom, General Motors, and JVC Americas.

During the appeal to the Supreme Court, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP represented the petitioner (Garmin), while the Director of the USPTO intervened as an appellee to defend the PTAB's decision. Therefore, for the Supreme Court case Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, Cuozzo (the appellant) would have been represented by counsel, but specific names for that stage from the provided search results are not explicit beyond the mention of Timothy M. Salmon and John R. Kasha from earlier stages.

It is important to note that Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. were the petitioners challenging the patent at the PTAB. While Garmin was initially involved in the Federal Circuit appeal, they later settled with Cuozzo and dropped out, with the USPTO continuing as the appellee to defend the PTAB's decision.

The search results do not explicitly list the counsel of record representing Cuozzo during the initial IPR proceeding itself (IPR2015-00489) before the PTAB, but focus on the subsequent appeals. The attorneys listed above represented Cuozzo in the appeal phases.