§

Jaguar Land Rover Limited

IPR2019-01539 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020)
Jaguar Land Rover Limited

11 Cited authorities

  1. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 276 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

  2. In re Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 519 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  3. Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC

    138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018)   Cited 85 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inter partes review proceedings do not violate a patent owner's constitutional rights because patents are the grant of a public franchise

  4. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.

    393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 53 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding examiner demand, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105, for “information that the applicant is in the best position to most cheaply provide”

  5. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

    896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 13 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the PTAB's decision that tribal immunity does not apply to IPR

  6. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas

    362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 11 times   9 Legal Analyses

    No. 03-1339. DECIDED: March 24, 2004. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 246 F.Supp.2d 460, Leonie M. Brinkema, J. Christopher N. Sipes, Covington Burling, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Raymond T. Chen, Associate

  7. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 550 times   890 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  8. 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"

  9. Section 42.4 - Notice of trial

    37 C.F.R. § 42.4   Cited 54 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"

  10. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A

  11. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"