§

Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC

09707079 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015)
Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC

16 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 606 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 68 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[d]ue to breaks in the chain of priority," the "[parent] patent [was] prior art for some of the asserted claims"

  3. Hyatt v. Boone

    146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 70 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Board was required to decide priority issue even though applicant had requested conversion of his application to a statutory invention registration during interference

  4. 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.

  5. Honeywell Intern. v. U.S.

    609 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Honeywell International, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1292, 1303-04 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the plaintiff sold infringing devices to the government, and later acquired the patent for those devices as the result of a merger.

  6. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., Llc.

    778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 11 times   21 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1301. 2015-02-4 In re CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. Timothy M. Salmon, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, of Basking Ridge, NJ, argued for appellant. Of counsel on the brief was John R. Kasha, Kasha Law LLC, of North Potomac, MD. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. With him on the brief were Scott C. Weidenfeller and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitors. DYK Affirmed. Newman, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion

  7. 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

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,366 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

  9. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 times   2273 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  10. 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"

  11. 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)

  12. 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

  13. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  14. Section 42.300 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.300   Cited 13 times   10 Legal Analyses

    (a) A covered business method patent review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part and is also subject to the post-grant review procedures set forth in subpart C except for §§ 42.200 , 42.201 , 42.202 , and 42.204 . (b) In a covered business method patent 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

  15. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 6 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"

  16. 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,