§

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

07997158 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. U.S. Philips Corporation

13 Cited authorities

  1. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

    561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 269 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an academic paper distributed among a limited set of professional colleagues is not a prior art publication

  2. 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”

  3. 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))

  4. 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"

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. Audio MPEG Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Comp.

    Civil Action No. 2:15cv73 (E.D. Va. Sep. 15, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Civil Action No. 2:15cv73 09-15-2015 AUDIO MPEG, INC., et al., Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMP., Defendants. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. Senior United States District Judge OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company's ("HP") Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,323,396, 5,777,992, and 5,539,829 ("Motion"), Doc. 20. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Allegations This

  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 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 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"

  13. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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