Ptab company logo

The profile is currenly unclaimed by the seller. All information is provided by CB Insights.

About Ptab

Ptab© is a self-contained, triple tier security protected personal information system. Everything that you use on a daily basis in terms of secure transactions, membership rewards, and identification purposes can be conducted with the Ptab©. No longer will the threat of identity theft be a concern to you or your information.Ptab© will be accepted at all retailers with a regular credit card read interface. This includes, but is not limited to, gas stations, debit card machines, automated teller machines, grocery stores, retail outlets, and restaurants. If credit cards are accepted, Ptab© is accepted.The only way to access your information on Ptab© is with a perfect match to your iris and a positive match to your index finger and thumb prints. Without these biometrics, your information stays locked and unavailable to intruders. The card itself is lost, stolen or damaged, it can easily be replaced with a new card. There is no need to replace the entire device.

Ptab Headquarter Location

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Latest Ptab News

PTAB Orders Production of Final Infringement Contentions from Related Litigations Because they were Inconsistent with Patent Own...

Aug 3, 2022

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> Petitioners moved for an order requiring Patent Owner to produce discovery comprising Final Infringement Contentions from related district court litigations between the parties. Petitioners set forth two independent bases for requested discovery: (1) the Final Infringement Contentions should be produced as “additional” discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i); or (2) the Final Infringement Contentions were required “routine” discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) granted Petitioners’ motion as additional discovery, but declined to reach a decision on Petitioners’ alternative basis under routine discovery. A party seeking additional discovery during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings must demonstrate that it is “necessary in the interests of justice.”  In assessing whether a party has met this standard, the PTAB looks to five factors articulated in Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013). Here, the PTAB found that all five Garmin factors supported granting Petitioners’ motion. First, Petitioners established there was more than a possibility that the requested discovery would yield useful information because the Final Infringement Contentions provide an indication of Patent Owner’s understanding of the ’835 Patent and it was undisputed that Patent Owner took different positions regarding claim language. While the PTAB did not rule on whether those positions were in fact inconsistent, the “acknowledged differences” were sufficient to support a finding that the requested discovery is in the interests of justice. Furthermore, because Petitioners’ counsel already had the requested discovery in their possession from the related litigations, this was not a fishing expedition for something that might not exist. Second, Petitioners were not trying to ascertain the underlying basis for Patent Owner’s litigation positions. Third, the Final Infringement Contentions would be unavailable unless Petitioners’ motion was granted and the Board might need access to those complete contentions should Petitioners’ substantive briefing assert arguments related to alleged inconsistencies. Fourth, Patent Owner readily understood what Petitioners were requesting for additional discovery in the IPR proceeding. Fifth, it would not be burdensome for Patent Owner to produce the Final Infringement Contentions in this IPR proceeding. Practice Point: Discovery is limited in IPR proceedings, and the PTAB will only authorize additional discovery when necessary in the interests of justice. A party is more likely to meet this standard where the request is limited in scope, the moving party is already in possession of the requested materials from related proceedings, and access to the requested materials by the PTAB may be necessary for a complete record (e.g., to determine whether a party has taken inconsistent positions regarding claim scope).

    Discover the right solution for your team

    The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

    Request a demo

    CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.