§

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Constellation Technologies LLC

09745746 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2015)
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Constellation Technologies LLC

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Klopfenstein

    380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 76 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether a reference is publicly accessible is based on the “facts and circumstances surrounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public”

  2. SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.

    511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 53 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that paper on FTP website, while publicly available, was not publicly accessible because it was “not catalogued or indexed in a meaningful way”

  3. In re Hall

    781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 93 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that competent evidence of the general library practice may be relied upon to establish an approximate time when a thesis became accessible"

  4. In re Lister

    583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 36 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reference archived in an on-line database searchable by keyword qualified as printed publication

  5. Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.

    445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that figures within the prosecution history file in the Canadian patent office but not part of the issued patent were publicly accessible and thus a printed publication

  6. In re Cronyn

    890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 65 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a thesis presentation made to a handful of faculty and not catalogued or indexed in a "meaningful" way was not a printed publication

  7. Suffolk Technologies, LLC v. AOL Inc.

    752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 18 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that alterations of time stamps and email addresses in a reproduction of a newsgroup post asserted as prior art were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning the post

  8. 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."

  9. 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"

  10. Section 311 - Inter partes review

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

  11. Section 3 - Officers and employees

    35 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 50 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

  12. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution