Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer, Corp.

2014-1732 Fed. Cir. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Other action filed 22 Aug 2014 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 10 Feb 2016, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: .

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US4916635AUS6314473B1
Case no.
2014-1732
Verdict cause
Other action
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Judge
George B. Daniels
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
22 Aug 2014 – 10 Feb 2016
Duration
537 days
Basis of termination
None recorded
Products & marks
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2014-1732, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US4916635A Inactive App. US07/243315

Shaping command inputs to minimize unwanted dynamics

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MA, A MA CORP.

A sequence of impulses is determined which eliminates unwanted dynamics of a dynamic system. This impulse sequence is convolved with an arbitrary command input to drive the dynamic system to an output with a minimum of unwanted dynamics. The input sequence is time optimal in that it constitutes the shortest possible command input that results in no unwanted dynamics of the system subject to robustness and implementation constraints. The preshaping technique is robust under system parameter uncertainty and may be applied to both open and closed loop systems.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
10 Apr 1990
Est. expiry
12 Sep 2008
Validity challenges
4 on record90010586 · EPR · filed by SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC90008525 · EPR · filed by Christopher L. McKee90008561 · EPR · filed by Seagate Technology, LLC90010123 · EPR · filed by SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G05B19/19G05D19/02G05B13/02
Prosecution counsel
CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP
US4916635A patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US4916635A, from the published patent document
US4916635A patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US4916635A, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
US6314473B1 Inactive App. US09/262781

System for removing selected unwanted frequenices in accordance with altered settings in a user interface of a data storage device

CONVOLVE, INC.

Techniques are provided herein for reducing vibrations in various modes of a dynamic system. One such technique comprises incorporating vibration limiting and sensitivity constraints into a partial fraction expansion equation model of the system so as to reduce vibrations to specific levels. Another technique comprises shaping a command determined using the partial fraction expansion equation model to produce a desired output. The entire command may be shaped or only selected portions thereof which produce vibrations. Another technique involves commanding in current to produce saturation in voltage. By doing this, it is possible to command voltage switches. The times at which the switches occur can be set to reduce system vibrations. Other techniques are also provided. These include varying transient portions at the beginning, middle and/or end of a move and using Posicast inputs, among others.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
6 Nov 2001
Est. expiry
4 Mar 2019
Validity challenges
3 on record90008354 · EPR · filed by Seagate Technology, LLC90011505 · EPR · filed by SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC90010251 · EPR · filed by BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G11B5/55G11B21/08G05B11/36G05D3/12
US6314473B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US6314473B1, from the published patent document
US6314473B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US6314473B1, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Gregory A. MarkelConvolve, Inc.Plaintiff
Christopher LandgraffCompaq Computer, Corp.Defendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

Case 2014-1732 · Fed. Cir. · closed 10 February 2016
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Convolve, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for control & regulating systems and information storage (magnetic/optical)
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2014-1732?

2014-1732 is a patent other action brought by Convolve, Inc. against Compaq Computer, Corp., filed on 22 Aug 2014 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 10 February 2016.

Which patents were asserted in 2014-1732?

US4916635A (“Shaping command inputs to minimize unwanted dynamics”), assigned to MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MA, A MA CORP., currently inactive; US6314473B1 (“System for removing selected unwanted frequenices in accordance with altered settings in a user interface of a data storage device”), assigned to CONVOLVE, INC., currently inactive.

How long did case 2014-1732 take?

537 calendar days, from filing on 22 Aug 2014 to closure on 10 February 2016.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2014-1732?

Judge George B. Daniels presided. Gregory A. Markel is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Convolve. Christopher Landgraff appears for defendant Compaq Computer.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2014-1732 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysisScope, search, claim review and the report counsel will ask for.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsCompetitor patent monitoring tools compared

Browse related dockets
Cases in Fed. Cir. All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2014-1732 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.