§

Carucel Investments, LP

IPR2019-01101 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2020)
Carucel Investments, LP

29 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,168 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 969 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  5. Scimed Life Sys. v. Adv. Cardiovascular

    242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 863 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that description of "present invention" in specification is limiting on claim

  6. 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

  7. On Demand Machine v. Ingram Industries

    442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 190 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "providing means for a customer to visually review" nested in a method claim was a means-plus-function term

  8. Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB

    892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[v]iewed individually, the specific examples of vexatious conduct recited by the district court [were] somewhat tenuous," but "when viewed together, we cannot say that the district court's finding of vexatious litigation was clearly erroneous"

  9. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 140 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  10. Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc.

    778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 109 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "repetitive motion pacing system for pacing a user" in the preamble is limiting in part because "'repetitive motion pacing system' in the preamble of claim 25 similarly provides antecedent basis for the term 'repetitive motion pacing system' recited as a positive limitation in the body of claim 28, which depends from claim 25"

  11. 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 374 times   630 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  15. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 288 times   310 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  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 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"

  19. 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"

  20. 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,