§

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. U.S. Philips Corporation

08488318 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. U.S. Philips Corporation

15 Cited authorities

  1. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

    561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 271 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an academic paper distributed among a limited set of professional colleagues is not a prior art publication

  2. Kyocera Wireless v. I.T.C

    545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 118 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Finding public accessibility when the reference was contained in a book sold to the public

  3. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.

    908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendment made as of right under MPEP weighs against an inference of intent to deceive

  4. 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”

  5. Cooper Cameron v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prod

    291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 79 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no reasonable juror could find that a port placed above two plugs could be insubstantially different from a port placed in between the two plugs

  6. 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”

  7. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

    800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 40 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

  8. 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"

  9. IN RE WYER

    655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 61 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding laid-open Australian patent was a printed publication where microfilm copy was available to the public at patent office and abstract was published

  10. Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. AB Fortia

    774 F.2d 1104 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 41 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding paper distributed at conference publicly accessible without considering indexing

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,990 times   998 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 375 times   632 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  13. Section 401 - Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies

    17 U.S.C. § 401   Cited 242 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring notice on works published "by authority of the copyright owner"

  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"

  15. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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