§

Terremark North America LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC

09551365 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016)
Terremark North America LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC

19 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,780 times   164 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 734 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. Teva Pharms. U.S., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 254 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim indefinite where molecular weight could be measured three different ways and would yield different results and the patent and prosecution history did not provide guidance as to which measure to use

  5. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 279 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  6. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  7. 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 Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  8. 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

  9. 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."

  10. 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"

  11. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 544 times   889 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  12. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 403 times   188 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  13. 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"

  14. Section 312 - Petitions

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

  15. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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

  16. Section 42.5 - Conduct of the proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 42.5   Cited 12 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Board may determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation not specifically covered by this part and may enter non-final orders to administer the proceeding. (b) The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension. (c)Times. (1)Setting times. The Board may set times by order. Times set by rule are default and may be modified by order. Any modification of times will take any applicable statutory pendency

  17. Section 42.6 - Filing of documents, including exhibits; service

    37 C.F.R. § 42.6   Cited 9 times   43 Legal Analyses

    (a)General format requirements. (1) Page size must be 81/2 inch * 11 inch except in the case of exhibits that require a larger size in order to preserve details of the original. (2) In documents, including affidavits, created for the proceeding: (i) Markings must be in black or must otherwise provide an equivalent dark, high-contrast image; (ii) 14-point, Times New Roman proportional font, with normal spacing, must be used; (iii) Double spacing must be used except in claim charts, headings, tables

  18. Section 42.105 - Service of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.105   Cited 1 times   6 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the requirements of § 42.6 , the petitioner must serve the petition and exhibits relied upon in the petition as follows: (a) The petition and supporting evidence must be served on the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the subject patent. The petitioner may additionally serve the petition and supporting evidence on the patent owner at any other address known to the petitioner as likely to effect service. (b) Upon agreement of the parties, service may be made electronically

  19. Section 42.106 - Filing date

    37 C.F.R. § 42.106   Cited 1 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)Complete petition. A petition to institute inter partes review will not be accorded a filing date until the petition satisfies all of the following requirements: (1) Complies with § 42.104 ; (2) Effects service of the petition on the correspondence address of record as provided in § 42.105(a) ; and (3) Is accompanied by the fee to institute required in § 42.15(a) . (b)Incomplete petition. Where a party files an incomplete petition, no filing date will be accorded, and the Office will dismiss the