Koss Corporation

22 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,569 times 188 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"
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,882 times 168 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"
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,187 times 68 Legal Analyses
Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu
138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) Cited 265 times 140 Legal Analyses
Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"
Vivid Technologies v. American Science
200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 749 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.
340 U.S. 147 (1950) Cited 982 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding obvious a combination of old elements which perform the same function in combination and individually
In re NuVasive, Inc.
842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 111 times 16 Legal Analyses
Vacating and remanding so that an agency could fulfill its obligation to "make the necessary findings and have an adequate evidentiary basis for its findings" and to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action"
In re Schreiber
128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 150 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency
Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.
848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 67 times 11 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the Board provided an inadequate analysis to provide meaningful appellate review
In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.
829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 62 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
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,165 times 492 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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,025 times 1026 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 314 Cited 379 times 634 Legal Analyses
Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 316 Cited 298 times 314 Legal Analyses
Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 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"
Section 3 - Officers and employees
35 U.S.C. § 3 Cited 50 times 29 Legal Analyses
Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”
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"
Section 42.104 - Content of petition
37 C.F.R. § 42.104 Cited 28 times 54 Legal Analyses
Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"

Koss Corporation

22 Cited authorities

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"

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

Holding obvious a combination of old elements which perform the same function in combination and individually

Vacating and remanding so that an agency could fulfill its obligation to "make the necessary findings and have an adequate evidentiary basis for its findings" and to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action"

Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

Concluding that the Board provided an inadequate analysis to provide meaningful appellate review

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

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

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"

Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"