5/15/2015. Mangosoft v. Oracle. Case No. C JM. Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation. May 19, U.S.
|
|
- Willis Cornelius Watson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Mangosoft v. Oracle Case No. C JM Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation May 19, U.S. Patent 6,148,
2 U.S. Patent No. 5,918,229 3 The Invention The 377 patent, Abstract 4 2
3 The Invention The 377 patent, Fig. 1 The Invention The 377 patent, Fig. 2 3
4 The 377 Patent, Claim 1 The 377 patent, claim 1 The 229 Patent, Claim 1 The 229 patent, claim 1 4
5 Local Memory Device Oracle Adds Limitations Not Supported by the Intrinsic Evidence Nothing in claim language or specification supports adding the limitations directly or only Oracle s construction is litigation driven and does not reflect the proper construction in light of the intrinsic evidence 5
6 Claim Language Specification Recognizes Network Hard Disk Drives as Local Storage For example, a portion of the addressable shared memory space 20 can be assigned or mapped to one or more hard disk drives that are on the network or associated with one or more of the network nodes 12a-12d as local hard disk storage for those particular nodes. The 229 patent at col. 6:
7 Specification Describes Memory Subsystem as Accessing Each Memory Element The 377 patent at col. 7:
8 Oracle s Markman Presentation May 19, 2015 Presented By Colette R. Mayer 1 local memory device Claim Term Oracle s Construction Mangosoft sconstruction local memory device coupled to the node and providing volatile storage a memory device directly attached only to one node JCCS at 1 a memory device a portion or the whole of which can be contributed to the shared addressable memory space by a particular node JCCS at 1 2 1
9 local memory device Claim Term Oracle s Construction Mangosoft sconstruction local memory device coupled to the node and providing volatile storage a memory device directly attached only to one node JCCS at 1 a memory device a portion or the whole of which can be contributed to the shared addressable memory space by a particular node JCCS at
10 5 Claim Language is the Best Evidence It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted) [W]e construe claims with an eye toward giving effect to all of their terms.... Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 6 3
11 7 8 4
12 9 Mangosoft Rewrites Claim Language Courts cannot rewrite claim language. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008) [T]o construe the claims in the manner suggested... would read an express limitation out of the claims. This, we will not do because courts can neither broaden nor narrow claims to give the patentee something different than what he has set forth. Tex. Instruments v. ITC, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted) 10 5
13 Claims According to Mangosoft Mangosoft would broaden the claims to include: Any memory that can be contributed to the shared addressable memory space JCCS at 1 (emphasis added). 11 Claims According to Mangosoft Mangosoft Renders Local and Coupled Superfluous: 12 6
14 The Terms Local and Coupled Matter 13 Specification: Each Node Has Its Own Memory Construing transverse to include something other than perpendicular in spite of the repeated, narrow usage of that term in the specification would provide patent coverage that is broader than what the inventor actually invented and disclosed in his specification, which clearly should have been the starting point for claim construction. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp. 483 F.3d 800, 814 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 14 7
15 Specification: Each Node Has Its Own Memory Summary of the Invention emphasizes that claimed devices are local to only one computer: the persistent memory devices will be understood to include a plurality of local persistent memory devices that each couple to a respective one of the plural computers. 377 patent at 3: local persistent memory devices of the plural computers Id. at 3: local persistent memory device of a first computer local persistent memory device of a second computer Id. at 3: a plurality of local volatile memory devices each coupled to a respective one of the plural computers, and the persistent memory devices each coupled to a respective one of the plural computers. Id. at 3: Specification: Each Node Has Its Own Memory We have held that a claim term was properly construed in accordance with a limitation that was repeatedly and consistently described in the specification where those statements, some of which were found in the Summary of the Invention... were not limited to describing a preferred embodiment, but more broadly describe the overall inventions.... Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d. 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 16 8
16 Specification Rejects Mangosoft s Construction 17 Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction During Prosecution Mangosoft tried to get claims that did not limit the location of the memory devices were, or whether they were coupled to anything. The Patent Office rejected those claims over prior art. In order to secure the patent, Mangosoft agreed to limit its claims to require local memory, coupled to each respective node. 18 9
17 Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer is well established in Supreme Court precedent, precluding patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.... [And thus] claims that have been narrowed in order to obtain the issuance of a patent by distinguishing the prior art cannot be sustained to cover that which was previously by limitation eliminated from the patent. Omega Eng g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 19 Mangosoft: Before the Claim Amendment 1. A computer system having a shared addressable memory space, comprising a data network for carrying data signals representative of computer readable information and a persistent memory device, coupled to said data network, and having persistent storage for data signals, a plurality of computers, each sharing the shared addressable memory space and including an interface, coupled to said data network, for accessing said data network to exchange data signals therewith, a shared memory subsystem for mapping a portion of said shared addressable memory space to a portion of said persistent storage to provide thereby addressable persistent storage for data signals accessible by each of the plural computers. See 377 File History at p (10/15/98 Amendment) 20 10
18 Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction Mangosoft abandoned its broader claims to get its patent: 377 File History at p. 143 (10/15/98 Amendment) 21 Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction Limitations added to obtain patent 377 File History at p (10/15/98 Amendment) 22 11
19 The only extrinsic evidence supports Oracle Local had a commonly understood meaning in 1996: peripheral equipment that is linked directly to a computer or other supporting equipment without an intervening communications channel McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th ed. 1994) at Mangosoft s Argument Mangosoft: The 229 patent provides an example in which the local persistent memory is not directly attached only to one node Mangosoft Br. at 5 (quoting 229 patent at 6:45 50). But the specification as cited by Mangosoft describes the exact opposite each node has its own local hard disk : For example, a portion of the addressable shared memory space 20 can be assigned or mapped to one or more hard disks that are on the network or associated with one or more of the network nodes 12a 12d as local hard disk storage for those particular nodes. 229 Patent at 6:45 50 (emphasis added)
20 Mangosoft s Argument Figure 2 of the 377 patent and Figure 6 of the 229 patent disclose a persistent network memory device, 26 and 226 respectively, that is not directly attached only to one node. Figures 2 and 6 also show that the network memory device, 26 and 226, includes portions of the shared addressable memory space Cm, Cp, Ct, mapped thereon the same way the other local memory devices 36a 36b and 326a 326c show the addressable memory space mapped thereon Mangosoft Br. at 4 5. Has nothing to do with whether the network memory device 26/226 is local. It is not. 25 Network Memory not Local 377 Patent at 7:
21 Network Disk Is Not A Node Specification omits the central network disk from the shared memory system:
The following acknowledges applicable legal standards, which are more fully set forth in the parties' briefs.
United States District Court, C.D. California. INTELLIGENT COMPUTER SOLUTIONS, INC, v. VOOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. No. CV 05-5168-VBF(JWJx) Aug. 3, 2007. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs, None Present. Attorneys
More informationCase 9:06-cv RHC Document 113 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Case 9:06-cv-00155-RHC Document 113 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION Blackboard Inc., vs. Desire2Learn Inc., Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationCase 2:05-cv DPH-MKM Document 27 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case 2:05-cv-73068-DPH-MKM Document 27 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SYMBILITY SOLUTIONS INC., a Canadian corporation, v. XACTWARE,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-KING
Case 1:06-cv-21359-JLK Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 37 ROTHSCHILD TRUST HOLDINGS, LLC, v. Plaintiff, CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., and CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, v. Plaintiffs, CANON INC. et al., Defendants. / No. C -0 CW ORDER GRANTING
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Defendant. :
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IPC SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 16-443-CFC CLOUD9 TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant. : Karen Jacobs, Stephen J. Kraftchik, MORRIS,
More informationUnited States District Court, M.D. Florida. BILLINGNETWORK PATENT, INC, Plaintiff. v. CERNER PHYSICIAN PRACTICE, INC. and Vitalworks, Inc, Defendants.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida. BILLINGNETWORK PATENT, INC, Plaintiff. v. CERNER PHYSICIAN PRACTICE, INC. and Vitalworks, Inc, Defendants. No. 8:04-CV-1515-T-27MAP Feb. 2, 2006. Harry Wagner
More information5,721,937, 6,049,528, 6,574,591, 6,868,417, 7,107,385, 7,130,873, 7,313,720. Cited.
United States District Court, N.D. California. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC, Defendant. No. C-07-05488 EDL Dec. 22, 2008. Background: Owner of patents related to disk drive
More informationCase 6:08-cv LED Document 302 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:08-cv-00088-LED Document 302 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MIRROR WORLDS, LLC Plaintiff vs. APPLE, INC. Defendant
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. California. CABLE & WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. California. CABLE & WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant. No. C 02-03708 CRB July 10, 2003. Owner of patent for method of
More informationPaper Date: July 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 571-272-7822 Date: July 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., Petitioner, v. VIRNETX INC., Patent Owner. Case
More informationCase 3:11-cv DMS-WVG Document 908 Filed 12/28/17 PageID Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-0-dms-wvg Document 0 Filed // PageID. Page of IN RE: AMERANTH CASES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS. cv DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS (WVG)
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 3DLABS INC., LTD., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1160
More informationCase: Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 09/02/ , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1076 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 09/02/2014 2014-1076, -1317 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants,
More informationPaper 10 Tel: Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 Tel: 571 272 7822 Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IRON DOME LLC, Petitioner, v. CHINOOK LICENSING
More informationPaper Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioners, v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-251-DF-CE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION INNOVA PATENT LICENSING, LLC vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-251-DF-CE ALCATEL-LUCENT HOLDINGS, ET AL. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-MRP -FFM Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Frank M. Weyer, Esq. (State Bar No. 0 TECHCOASTLAW 0 Whitley Ave. Los Angeles CA 00 Telephone: (0 - Facsimile: (0-0 fweyer@techcoastlaw.com
More informationPaper 13 Tel: Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DELL INC. Petitioner v. ACCELERON, LLC Patent Owner
More informationJames C. Yoon, Ryan R. Smith, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. DISPLAYLINK CORPORATION, Plaintiffs. v. MAGIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CV-07-01998 RMW March 5, 2009. Background:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., T-MOBILE US, INC., ERICSSON INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, UNITED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al Doc. 210 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD, v. Plaintiff, T-MOBILE
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
Filed on behalf of Apple Inc. By: Lori A. Gordon Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Tel: (202) 371-2600 Fax: (202) 371-2540 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
More informationKyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility LLC (Petitioners) v. SoftView LLC (Patent Owner)
DX-1 Petitioners Exhibit 1054-1 Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility LLC (Petitioners) v. SoftView LLC (Patent Owner) CASE IPR2013-00004; CASE IPR2013-00007; CASE IPR2013-00256; CASE IPR2013-00257
More informationORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,825,631; 5,717,761; 6,950,444; 5,880,903; 4,937,819; 5,719,858; 6,131,159; AND 5,778,234
United States District Court, D. Delaware. In re REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP PATENT LITIGATION. No. 07-md-1848(GMS) Nov. 19, 2008. Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, David L. Schwarz,
More informationBackground: Owner of patents related to telecommunications data networking sued competitors for infringement.
United States District Court, D. Delaware. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Plaintiff. v. EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. and Foundry Networks, Inc, Defendants. No. CIV.A.03-508 JJF April 14, 2005. Background: Owner of
More informationCraig Crandall Reilly, Law Office Of Craig C. Reilly, Alexandria, VA, for Defendants. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. VERIZON SERVICES CORPORATION, et al, Plaintiffs. v. COX FIBERNET VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, et al, Defendants. Sept. 3, 2008. John Christopher
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 GEMALTO S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., EXEDEA, INC., GOOGLE, INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC (also known as Motorola
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311 AND 37 C.F.R
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: Trial Number: To Be Assigned U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 Filed: June 30, 1997 Issued: November 17, 1998 Inventor(s): Norbert
More informationCase5:08-cv PSG Document374 Filed11/19/12 Page1 of 4. [See Signature Page for Information on Counsel for Plaintiffs]
Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed// Page of 0 [See Signature Page for Information on Counsel for Plaintiffs] ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SOPHOS LIMITED, Appellant v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR
More informationPaper Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 39 571-272-7822 Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, and NETAPP, INC.,
More informationUnited States District Court, District of Columbia. In Re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION.
United States District Court, District of Columbia. In Re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: The First Wave Cases- Fujifilm Corp. v. Papst, 07-cv-1118; Matsushita Elec.
More informationPaper 17 Tel: Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner, v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS,
More informationCase 1:13-cv LY Document 45 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-00492-LY Document 45 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 41 N THE UNTED STATES DSTRCT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DSTRCT OF TEXAS AUSTN DVSON CSCO SYSTEMS, NC., v. Plaintiff, NNOVATVE WRELESS SOLUTONS, LLC,
More informationPaper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, Petitioner, v. INTERTAINER, INC., Patent Owner.
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner. COMPLEMENTSOFT, LLC Patent Owner
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 12, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner v. COMPLEMENTSOFT,
More informationUnited States District Court, D. Massachusetts. EMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. EMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Civil Action No. 00-40188-NMG Sept. 12, 2003. Leanne J. Fitzgerald, EMC
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1180 PC CONNECTOR SOLUTIONS LLC, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, SMARTDISK CORPORATION and FUJI PHOTO FILM U.S.A., INC., Defendants-Appellees. Jonathan
More informationCase 4:15-cv PJH Document 40 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-pjh Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 0) shosie@hosielaw.com DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 0) drice@hosielaw.com ANTHONY K. LEE (CA Bar No. 0) alee@hosielaw.com DARRELL
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 15-1891 Document: 45-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2016 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
More informationPaper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 66 571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BROADCOM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WI-FI ONE, LLC, Patent
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BSG TECH LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BUYSEASONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee RAKUTEN COMMERCE, LLC, Defendant 2017-1980 Appeal from the United States
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners,
Kyocera PX 1052_1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners, v. SOFTVIEW LLC, Patent Owner. SUPPLEMENTAL
More informationCLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER
United States District Court, S.D. California. WEBSIDESTORY, INC, Plaintiff / Counterdefendant. v. NETRATINGS, INC, Defendant / Counterclaimant. No. 06CV408 WQH (AJB) July 10, 2007. James S. Blank, Oliver
More informationPaper 7 Tel: Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Petitioner, v. SIPCO, LLC,
More informationPaper 22 Tel: Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC., Petitioner, v. CLOUDING
More informationPaper Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVAYA INC. Petitioner v. NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 2:11-cv-04550-JFB-SIL Document 104 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 14902 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK N o 11-CV-4550 (JFB)(SIL) EASYWEB INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff,
More informationStrategies for Patenting Softwarebased Inventions in the U.S.
Strategies for Patenting Softwarebased Inventions in the U.S. Presented by: Tonya Drake ~ Fish & Richardson P.C. (617) 956-5986 drake@fr.com Six Practical Tips to Effective Software Patents 1. Include
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 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 informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 90/010,420 02/23/ US 2134
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 informationCase 4:15-cv PJH Document 44 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 43
Case :-cv-0-pjh Document Filed 0// Page of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (CA Bar No. 0) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com Sean S. Pak (CA Bar No. 0) seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
More informationPaper No Filed: May 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 37 571.272.7822 Filed: May 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Petitioner, v. IP CO., LLC, Patent
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. California. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. LEXAR MEDIA, INC, Defendant. No. C MJJ. Jan. 24, 2005.
United States District Court, N.D. California. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. LEXAR MEDIA, INC, Defendant. No. C 03-0167 MJJ Jan. 24, 2005. Arthur I. Neustadt, Carl E. Schlier, Richard D. Kelly, Michael
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner,
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32 571.272.7822 Filed: November 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. FATPIPE NETWORKS
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. BMC Software, Inc.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner v. BMC Software, Inc. Patent Owner Filing Date: August 30, 2000 Issue Date: May 17, 2005 TITLE:
More informationPaper Entered: April 20, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC., Petitioner, v. SSH COMMUNICATIONS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-dms-wvg Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 LOWIS & GELLEN LLP ANDREW C. WARNECKE (Pro Hac Vice) BRIAN R. ORR (Pro Hac Vice) 00 West Adams Street, Suite 00 Chicago, IL 00 Telephone: --00
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, v. Plaintiff, T MOBILE USA, INC., T-MOBILE US, INC., ERICSSON INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1491 ACTV, INC. and HYPERTV NETWORKS, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., and ESPN,
More informationKristin L. Cleveland, Scott E. Davis, Jared S. Goff, Michael N. Zachary, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, D. Oregon. COLLEGENET, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff. v. XAP CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. CV-03-1229-HU Oct. 29, 2004. Kristin L. Cleveland,
More informationPaper Date: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE, INC., Petitioner, v. WHITSERVE LLC, Patent Owner.
More informationPaper No Entered: August 4, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 39 571-272-7822 Entered: August 4, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION BACKGROUND
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. SOVERAIN SOFTWARE LLC, Plaintiff. v. AMAZON.COM, INC, Defendant. No. 6:04-CV-14 April 7, 2005. Barry R. Satine, Georgia Yanchar, Kenneth L. Stein,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendants Wowza Media Systems, LLC and Coffee Cup Partners, Inc.
Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Wowza Media Systems, LLC et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,
More informationCase 1:12-cv RGA Document 123 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 4831
Case 1:12-cv-00205-RGA Document 123 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 17 PageD #: 4831 N THE UNTED STATES DSTRCT COURT FOR THE DSTRCT OF DELAWARE COMCAST P HOLDNGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 12-205-RGA SPRNT
More informationCase 3:07-cv EDL Document 125 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 41
Case :0-cv-00-EDL Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 MARK D. FOWLER, Bar No. mark.fowler@dlapiper.com CLAYTON THOMPSON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) clayton.thompson@dlapiper.com DAVID ALBERTI, Bar No. 0 david.alberti@dlapiper.com
More informationAlbert J. Breneisen, Benjamin Hershkowitz, Robert F. Perry, Edward J. Handler, Kenyon & Kenyon, New York, NY, for British Telecommunications PLC.
United States District Court, S.D. New York. BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC, Plaintiffs. v. PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendants. No. 00 CIV 9451 CM March 13, 2002. Owner of patent for accessing
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, AND WORLD TALK RADIO, LLC, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v. YAHOO! INC.,
More informationFENNER INVESTMENT, LTD, Plaintiff. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Nintendo Company, Ltd., and Nintendo of America, Inc, Defendants.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. FENNER INVESTMENT, LTD, Plaintiff. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Nintendo Company, Ltd., and Nintendo of America, Inc, Defendants. No. 6:07 CV 8 Aug.
More informationJohn Allcock, DLA Piper US, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. California. HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P, Plaintiff. v. GATEWAY, INC, Defendant. Gateway, Inc, Counterclaim-Plaintiff. v. Hewlett-Packard Development Company
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-2147 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 11/16/2018 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM, LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
More informationCase 4:15-cv PJH Document 46 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-pjh Document Filed /0/ Page of SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. ) shosie@hosielaw.com DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 0) drice@hosielaw.com ANTHONY K. LEE (CA Bar No. 0) alee@hosielaw.com DARRELL RAE ATKINSON
More informationPaper Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 36 571-272-7822 Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GENBAND US LLC and GENBAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP.,
More informationCase 2:07-cv MMB Document 123 Filed 11/26/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:07-cv-04756-MMB Document 123 Filed 11/26/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 07-4756
More informationBRI AND PATENT PROSECUTION. Charles Bieneman January 19, 2017
BRI AND PATENT PROSECUTION Charles Bieneman January 19, 2017 BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION WHAT AND WHY 2 During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
More informationJohn L. Haller, Richard P. Sybert, Gordon and Rees, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants.
United States District Court, S.D. California. EUROPEAN NATURAL STONE COMPANY, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff. v. BEDROCK CREATIONS, a business entity of unknown formation; Bull Outdoor Products,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner,
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner, v. POI Search Solutions, LLC Patent Owner PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1232 STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendants-Appellees,
More informationPaper Date: February 16, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Case: 16-1901 Document: 1-2 Page: 9 Filed: 04/21/2016 (10 of 75) Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37 571-272-7822 Date: February 16, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1138 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MULTI-TECH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationUnited States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. ALCATEL USA SOURCING, INC, Plaintiff. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. ALCATEL USA SOURCING, INC, Plaintiff. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 6:06 CV 499 Aug. 21, 2008. Carl J. Blickle, Eric D. Hayes, Kirkland
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 38 Tel: 571.272.7822 Entered: June 17, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
More informationTHIRD CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER I. INTRODUCTION
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. CRYPTOGRAPHY RESEARCH, INC, Plaintiff. v. VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOC., et al, Defendant. No. C 04-04143 JW May 22, 2007. Darren E.
More informationTracing the History of Patent Eligibility Doctrine
Panel: Navigating, Litigating, and Even Avoiding Eligible Subject Matter Questions Advanced Patent Law Institute Dec. 10, 2015 Tracing the History of Patent Eligibility Doctrine Peter S. Menell Koret Professor
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner
Filed on behalf of Petitioners By: Richard D. Mc Leod (Reg. No. 46,921) Rick.mcleod@klarquist.com Klarquist Sparkman LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Paper No. 1 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Patent Owner Title:
More informationSoftware Patent Eligibility - Interim Eligibility Guidance and July Update
Software Patent Eligibility - Interim Eligibility Guidance and July Update Matthew Sked Legal Policy Advisor Office of Patent Legal Administration Old Dominion University December 1, 2015 35 U.S.C. 101
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner,
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32 571.272.7822 Filed: November 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. FATPIPE NETWORKS
More informationPETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,301,833 Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned Issued: October 30, 2012 Filed: September 29, 2008 Inventors: Chi-She
More informationDarren E. Donnelly, David Douglas Schumann, J. David Hadden, Laurie Charington, Lynn H. Pasahow, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. CRYPTOGRAPHY RESEARCH, INC, Plaintiff. v. VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOC., et al, Defendant. No. C 04-04143 JW Dec. 21, 2007. Darren
More informationGOOGLE S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE
Aloft Media, LLC v. Google, Inc. Doc. 52 Att. 2 GOOGLE S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE 3-1 Exhibit 1 Dockets.Justia.com ALOFT MEDIA, LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
More informationPaper Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORP., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC., Patent Owner.
More informationIs it time to disclaim the Disclaimer Rule?
Is it time to disclaim the Disclaimer Rule? By John M. DeBoer 1 I. INTRODUCTION Have you ever actually thought about the legal effect of making a disclaimer while registering a trademark? 2 Surely at some
More informationORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF THE '720 AND '417 PATENTS
United States District Court, N.D. California. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC, Defendant. No. C-07-05488 EDL Dec. 23, 2008. Background: Holder of patents for technique for
More informationDouglas E. Whitney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. DATA GENERAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant. No. Civ.A. 94-12213-NMG April 27, 2000. Owner of patents
More informationWhat does U.S. case law tell us about standard essential patent licensing?
What does U.S. case law tell us about standard essential patent licensing? Licensing Executives Society Automotive and Aerospace Subcommittee Mobile & Consumer Electronics Subcommittee David W. Long ESSENTIAL
More information