Representative Matters

Brooks Kushman AIA Post-Grant Trial Practice

Brooks Kushman has extensive experience filing petitions challenging patents in AIA post grant proceedings before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). We also have experience opposing PTAB petitions seeking post-grant review. The following are representative PTAB trials that we have litigated to a conclusion. In addition, Brooks Kushman is currently representing clients in over two dozen IPR and CBM reviews that are pending.

Representative Cases:

Representing Petitioners:

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00799, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision November 8, 2016, cancelled 40 claims (out of 40 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00606, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision November 8, 2016, cancelled 43 claims (out of 43 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00758, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision November 8, 2016, cancelled 41 claims (out of 45 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00790, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision November 4, 2016, cancelled 9 claims (out of 10 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00795, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision November 1, 2016 cancelled 8 claims (out of 10 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00794, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision November 1, 2016 cancelled 10 claims (out of 11 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00784, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 B2 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision October 21, 2016, cancelled 15 claims (out of 18 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00787, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 B2 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision October 21, 2016, cancelled 16 claims (out of 23 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00791, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 B2 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision October 21, 2016, cancelled 12 claims (out of 25 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00785, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 B2 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision October 21, 2016, cancelled 27 claims (out of 31 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00801, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 B2 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision October 21, 2016, cancelled 19 claims (out of 21 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-01416, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision March 10, 2016, cancelled 21 claims (out of 21 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-01415, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision March 10, 2016, cancelled 28 claims (out of 28 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00884, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision December 10, 2015 cancelled 3 claims (out of 6 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00904, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision December 10, 2015, cancelled 5 claims (out of 5 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00875, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,559,388 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision November 23, 2015, cancelled 7 claims (out of 7 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00570, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision September 28, 2015, cancelled 7 claims (out of 8 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00571, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision September 28, 2015 cancelled 8 claims (out of 8 claims challenged in petition).

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00579, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (entitled “Hybrid vehicles”). Final written decision September 28, 2015 cancelled 7 claims (out of 7 claims challenged in petition).

Apple, Inc. et. al v. Ameranth, Inc., Case No. CBM2014-00013, challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 (entitled “Information management and synchronous communications system with menu generation, and handwriting and voice modification of orders”). Final written decision March 20, 2015, cancelled 6 claims (out of 16 claims challenged). Brooks Kushman represented Domino’s Pizza, LLC in this matter and served as back-up counsel.

Agilysys, Inc. et. al v. Ameranth, Inc., Case No. CBM2014-00015, challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (entitled “Information management and synchronous communications system with menu generation”). Final written decision March 20, 2015, cancelled 11 claims (out of 16 claims challenged). Brooks Kushman represented Domino’s Pizza, LLC in this matter and served as back-up counsel.

Agilysys, Inc. et. al v. Ameranth, Inc., Case No. CBM2014-00016, challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 (entitled “Information management and synchronous communications system with menu generation”). Final written decision March 20, 2015, cancelled 10 claims (out of 15 claims challenged). Brooks Kushman represented Domino’s Pizza, LLC in this matter and served as back-up counsel.

Magnadyne Corp. v. Aquatic AV, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00312, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,578,081 (entitled “Docking station for an electronic device”). Settled on favorable terms prior to final decision.

Representing Patent Owners:

JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd., Case No. IPR2016-00046, defending patent owner on U.S. Patent No. 8,215,440. Trial in progress.

Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc., et al. v. JDS Technologies, Case No. IPR2016-00522, defending U.S. Patent No. 6,891,566 (entitled “Digital Video System Using Networked Cameras”). All claims denied institution on behalf of patent owner. Final written decision July 19, 2016.

Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc., et al. v. JDS Technologies, Case No. IPR2016-00532, defending U.S. Patent No. 6,891,566 (entitled “Digital Video System Using Networked Cameras”). All claims denied institution on behalf of patent owner.  Final written decision July 19, 2016.

Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc., et al. v. JDS Technologies, Case No. IPR2016-00511, defending U.S. Patent No. 8,185,964 (entitled “Digital Video System Using Networked Cameras”). All claims denied institution on behalf of patent owner.  Final written decision July 15, 2016.

Exacq Technologies, Inc. v. JDS Technologies, Case No. IPR2016-00567, defending U.S. Patent No. 8,185,964 (entitled “Digital Video System Using Networked Cameras”). All claims denied institution on behalf of patent owner.  Final written decision July 15, 2016.

Exacq Technologies, Inc. v. JDS Technologies, Case No. IPR2016-00568, defending U.S. Patent No. 6,891,566 (entitled “Digital Video System Using Networked Cameras”).  All claims denied institution on behalf of patent owner. Final written decision June 14, 2016.

Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc., et al. v. JDS Technologies, Case No. IPR2016-00520, defending U.S. Patent No. 6,891,566 (entitled “Digital Video System Using Networked Cameras”). All claims denied institution on behalf of patent owner. Final written decision June 8, 2016.

NHK Seating Of America, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, Case No. IPR2014-01079, defending U.S. Patent No. 6,631,949 (entitled “Variable movement headrest arrangement”). Final written decision January 12, 2016.

NHK Seating Of America, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, Case No. IPR2014-01101 defending U.S. Patent No. 6,631,955 (entitled “Variable movement headrest arrangement”). Final written decision January 5, 2016.

NHK Seating Of America, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, Case No. IPR2014-00925, defending U.S. Patent No. 8,434,818 (entitled “Vehicle seat having active head restraint”). Final written decision December 15, 2015.

NHK Seating Of America, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, Case No. IPR2014-00957 defending U.S. Patent No. 7,455,357 (entitled “Active head restraint system for a vehicle seat”). Settled on favorable terms prior to final decision.