§

Huber Engineered Woods LLC

IPR2019-00919 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020)
Huber Engineered Woods LLC

20 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,551 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,181 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.

    713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 222 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no duty to disclose a mere "conception" because it is not material

  5. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.

    815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 72 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner failed to carry its burden of proving public accessibility of the allegedly invalidating reference

  6. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

    829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 60 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory statements that "[t]he same analysis" applied to different prior art did not provide sufficient evidence to base its legal conclusion of obviousness

  7. Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.

    764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 58 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding grammar and logic of the claim required establishing a connection before transmitting

  8. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

    800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 41 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

  9. 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

  10. Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.

    878 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 29 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding PTAB construction of soybean patent “having a seed oil fatty acid composition comprising a linolenic acid content of about 3% or less” reaching variety of soybeans with 4% linolenic acid when the specification included an example that had a linolenic acid range of 2.3% to 4.1%

  11. 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."

  12. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,947 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  13. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 294 times   311 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  14. 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"

  15. 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)

  16. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 128 times   119 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  17. 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"

  18. Section 42.1 - Policy

    37 C.F.R. § 42.1   Cited 21 times   29 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. Part 42 governs proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sections 1.4 , 1.7 , 1.14 , 1.16 , 1.22 , 1.23 , 1.25 , 1.26 , 1.32 , 1.34 , and 1.36 of this chapter also apply to proceedings before the Board, as do other sections of part 1 of this chapter that are incorporated by reference into this part. (b)Construction. This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. (c)Decorum. Every party must act with courtesy and decorum