§

Nuance Communications, Inc.

IPR2019-00210 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2020)
Nuance Communications, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 744 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

  2. Dayco Products, Inc. v. Total Containment

    329 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 195 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclosure of the `196 application, filed in 1992, could have led to double patenting rejections in the applications that issued as the patents-in-suit, which all claim a 1989 filing date

  3. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  4. 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))

  5. 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

  6. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P'ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.

    825 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 37 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding no violation where "[t]he Board’s final written decisions were based on the same combinations of references that were set forth in its institution decisions"

  7. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  8. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  9. 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

  10. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,124 times   478 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 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 290 times   311 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  14. 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)

  15. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 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"

  16. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 28 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"

  17. 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,