§

Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.

08533115 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2014)
Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,813 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. 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

  3. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.

    357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 366 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents

  4. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 140 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading VertexÂŽ screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  5. Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Indus

    810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 95 times
    Finding amendment during reissue proceeding to provide an antecedent basis for phrase did not alter substantive scope of claims

  6. Straight Path Ip Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet Eu S.R.O.

    806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 35 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Sipnet, this court specifically rejected that "is connected" could mean "'is still registered, once was connected, and may or may not still be connected.'"

  7. In re Rambus Inc.

    694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 38 times
    Finding support for a broad construction of a claim term by referencing claims in related patents in the patent family

  8. In re Van Geuns

    988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1088. March 10, 1993. Jack E. Haken, U.S. Philips Corp., Tarrytown, NY, argued, for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief, was Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before ARCHER, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. ARCHER, Circuit Judge. Johannes R. Van Geuns appeals from the September 25, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  9. Bros, Incorporated v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co.

    261 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1958)   Cited 47 times
    In Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co., 261 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1958), the court, in dictum, noted a position contra to the one we take today without any discussion.

  10. 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."

  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 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 318 - Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of active duty

    37 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 5 times

    (a) SPECIAL WARFARE OFFICER DEFINED.-In this section, the term "special warfare officer" means an officer of a uniformed service who- (1) is qualified for a military occupational specialty or designator identified by the Secretary concerned as a special warfare military occupational specialty or designator; and (2) is serving in a position for which that specialty or designator is authorized. (b) RETENTION BONUS AUTHORIZED.-A special warfare officer who meets the eligibility requirements specified

  16. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  17. Section 42.101 - Who may petition for inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.101   Cited 7 times   10 Legal Analyses

    A person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent unless: (a) Before the date on which the petition for review is filed, the petitioner or real party-in-interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent; (b) The petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner is served

  18. 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,