§

Gracenote, Inc.

IPR2020-00216 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2020)
Gracenote, Inc.

14 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. 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

  3. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

    829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 60 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory statements that "[t]he same analysis" applied to different prior art did not provide sufficient evidence to base its legal conclusion of obviousness

  4. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.

    815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 39 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No. 2015–1072. 03-01-2016 HARMONIC INC., Appellant v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. Boris Feldman, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by James C. Yoon; Michael T. Rosato, Seattle, WA; Robin L. Brewer, San Francisco, CA; Gideon A. Schor, New York, NY; Richard Torczon, Washington, DC. Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David B. Cochran, Joseph M. Sauer, Cleveland, OH; Matthew Johnson

  5. Litton Indus. Products, Inc. v. Solid St. Sys

    755 F.2d 158 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that when there is no decision by the highest state court on a specific state law issue, the Federal Circuit must decide whether the district court properly predicted applicable state law

  6. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.

    868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 13 times   9 Legal Analyses

    2016-2321 08-22-2017 NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellant v. ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Broad Ocean Motor LLC, Broad Ocean Technologies LLC, Appellees Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor Scott R. Brown, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew B. Walters ; Christopher Michael Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas

  7. Okajima v. Bourdeau

    261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing how the prior art typically informs the question of the level of one of ordinary skill

  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 1 - Establishment

    35 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 510 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

  11. 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"

  12. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 128 times   118 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  13. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   248 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner

  14. Section 42.4 - Notice of trial

    37 C.F.R. § 42.4   Cited 54 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"