§

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Limited

10227131 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2014)
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Limited

21 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,547 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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,179 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.

    699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 99 times
    Finding "sufficient evidence of both commercial success and nexus to the features of the claimed invention" as presented through contracts and an employee's testimony

  4. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.

    737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 73 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding where the claimed value fell within prior art range, burden of production switched to the party opposing the obviousness challenge, while burden of proof remanded with challenger

  5. Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea

    726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 72 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding no reason to improve upon the prior art when it was not "recognized or disclosed" in the prior art

  6. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

    726 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 63 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that evidence that a particular combination solved additional problems was insufficient to outweigh other evidence of obviousness in view of a separate motivation to make the combination

  7. In re Soni

    54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "substantially improved results" to overcome obviousness when the 50-fold improvement in tensile strength was much greater than would have been predicted

  8. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  9. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  10. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 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 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 404 times   190 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  14. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 292 times   311 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  15. 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"

  16. 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)

  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 42.73 - Judgment

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

  19. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 16 times   38 Legal Analyses

    (a)Relief. Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion. (b)Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding. (c)Burden of proof. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. (d)Briefing. The Board may order briefing on any issue involved in the trial. 37 C.F

  20. Section 42.120 - Patent owner response

    37 C.F.R. § 42.120   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. A patent owner may file a single response to the petition and/or decision on institution. A patent owner response is filed as an opposition and is subject to the page limits provided in § 42.24 . (b)Due date for response. If no time for filing a patent owner response to a petition is provided in a Board order, the default date for filing a patent owner response is three months from the date the inter partes review was instituted. 37 C.F.R. §42.120 77 FR 48727 , Aug. 14, 2012, as amended