§

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

IPR2020-01278 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.

    815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 39 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No. 2015–1072. 03-01-2016 HARMONIC INC., Appellant v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. Boris Feldman, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by James C. Yoon; Michael T. Rosato, Seattle, WA; Robin L. Brewer, San Francisco, CA; Gideon A. Schor, New York, NY; Richard Torczon, Washington, DC. Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David B. Cochran, Joseph M. Sauer, Cleveland, OH; Matthew Johnson

  2. Huawei Techs. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

    Case No. 2:20-cv-00030-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 2:20-cv-00030-JRG 01-15-2021 HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., VERIZON ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, INC., VERIZON DATA SERVICES LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS GLOBAL LLC, VERIZON SERVICES CORP., Defendant(s). VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, VERIZON DATA SERVICES LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS GLOBAL LLC, VERIZON SERVICES CORP., AND VERIZON

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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."

  4. 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"

  5. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 377 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"