§

Advanced Bionics AG

IPR2020-01016 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2022)
Advanced Bionics AG

41 Cited authorities

  1. Barnhart v. Thomas

    540 U.S. 20 (2003)   Cited 4,506 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that at step four, in concluding that a claimant may return to her past relevant work, an ALJ need not investigate whether that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy, noting that the inquiry into the "national economy" is reserved for step five

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,538 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  3. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,780 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  4. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 258 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  5. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 271 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

  6. Liebel-Flarsheim Company v. Medrad, Inc.

    358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,312 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms are given the full breadth of their ordinary meaning unless a clear disavowal of scope is stated in the specification

  7. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 734 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  8. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 536 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

  9. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.

    848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 744 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of routine business practice can be used to prove that a reference was accessible

  10. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

    829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 240 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a nexus can be presumed when the asserted objective indicia is tied to a specific product and the product is the invention claimed in the patent

  11. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,772 times   227 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,105 times   470 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,922 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 544 times   889 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  15. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 403 times   188 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  16. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 184 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  17. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  18. Section 5 - Patent and Trademark Office Public Advisory Committees

    35 U.S.C. § 5   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES.- (1) APPOINTMENT.-The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall have a Patent Public Advisory Committee and a Trademark Public Advisory Committee, each of which shall have nine voting members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce. In each year, 3 members shall be appointed to each Advisory Committee for 3-year terms that shall begin on December 1 of that year. Any vacancy on

  19. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 191 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  20. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  21. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,