§

BLACKBERRY CORPORATION v. Zipit Wireless Inc

10846236 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)
BLACKBERRY CORPORATION v. Zipit Wireless Inc

19 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. v. Shaffer Equipment Co.

    11 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 909 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to disclose information that "could conceivably have affected the outcome of the litigation ... violates the general duty of candor that attorneys owe as officers of the court"

  2. 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

  3. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 124 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Determining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable

  4. Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Ltd.

    216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is well-settled that an expert's unsupported conclusion on the ultimate issue of infringement is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

  5. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    577 U.S. 1098 (2016)   Cited 8 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to review the Board's decision to institute review of certain claims on the basis of prior art not asserted regarding those claims

  6. Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., Inc.

    351 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that "prior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes intrinsic evidence"

  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. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee

    797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 29 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's reasoning must be set out "in sufficient detail to permit meaningful appellate review"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,143 times   481 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 6,012 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 405 times   192 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  12. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 377 times   633 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   140 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 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  17. Section 42.11 - Duty of candor; signing papers; representations to the Board; sanctions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.11   Cited 7 times   40 Legal Analyses

    (a)Duty of candor. Parties and individuals involved in the proceeding have a duty of candor and good faith to the Office during the course of a proceeding. (b)Signature. Every petition, response, written motion, and other paper filed in a proceeding must comply with the signature requirements set forth in § 11.18(a) of this chapter. The Board may expunge any unsigned submission unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the counsel's or party's attention. (c)Representations to

  18. Section 42.63 - Form of evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 42.63   Cited 2 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a)Exhibits required. Evidence consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit. (b)Translation required. When a party relies on a document or is required to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation must be filed with the document. (c)Exhibit numbering. Each party's exhibits must be uniquely numbered sequentially

  19. 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,