§

GM Global Technology Operations LLC

PGR2020-00054 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2021)
GM Global Technology Operations LLC

22 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,402 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,844 times   167 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"

  3. Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa

    543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 366 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design

  4. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 182 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

  5. Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.

    122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 244 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 103, "an invention, A’, that is obvious in view of subject matter A, derived from another, is also unpatentable. The obvious invention, A’, may not be unpatentable to the inventor of A, and it may not be unpatentable to a third party who did not receive the disclosure of A, but it is unpatentable to the party who did receive the disclosure" and thus that "subject matter derived from another not only is itself unpatentable to the party who derived it under § 102(f), but, when combined with other prior art, may make a resulting obvious invention unpatentable to that party under a combination of §§ 102(f) and 103."

  6. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

    101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 95 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court's vague description of the concept of a design patent provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to "discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision"

  7. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

    730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 49 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"

  8. In re Maatita

    900 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2017-2037 08-20-2018 IN RE: Ron MAATITA, Appellant Steven E. Shapiro, Kim Shapiro Park and Lee, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Joseph Gerald Swan, Joseph G. Swan, a Professional Corporation, Manhattan Beach, CA. William Lamarca, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Amy J. Nelson. Dyk, Circuit Judge. Steven E. Shapiro, Kim Shapiro Park and Lee, Los Angeles

  9. Auto. Body Parts Ass'n v. Ford Global Techs., LLC

    930 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating the Federal Circuit "ha often emphasized the presence or absence of alternative designs" in the functionality inquiry

  10. In re Borden

    90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 27 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the Board's affirmance of an obviousness rejection where the examiner found "differences between the [prior art] and appellant's design had little or no effect on the overall appearance of the design"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,374 times   1046 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,005 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 39 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")

  15. Section 326 - Conduct of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 326   Cited 26 times   23 Legal Analyses

    (a) REGULATIONS.-The Director shall prescribe regulations- (1) providing that the file of any proceeding under this chapter shall be made available to the public, except that any petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion; (2) setting forth the standards for the showing of sufficient grounds to institute a review under subsections (a) and (b) of section 324; (3) establishing

  16. Section 328 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 328   Cited 11 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a) FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.-If a post-grant review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 326(d). (b) CERTIFICATE.-If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director shall issue

  17. Section 1.152 - Design drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.152   Cited 32 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring design patent drawings to "contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article"

  18. Section 42.200 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.200   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) A post-grant review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part. (b) In a post-grant review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221 , shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b) , including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in

  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,