§

Kyocera Corporation Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC

11045757 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)
Kyocera Corporation Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,557 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 3,185 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Tokai Corp v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.

    632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that regional circuit law governs the decision to exclude evidence

  4. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  5. Power-One Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.

    599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 146 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a claim is not indefinite if "the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusions may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree."

  6. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing

    851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 167 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patentee bears the burden of proving a nexus between claimed secondary considerations and the merits of the patented invention

  7. Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

    110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 115 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of such a suggestion to combine is dispositive in an obviousness determination"

  8. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.

    679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 65 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court committed error by “us[ing] the invention to define the problem that the invention solves”

  9. Application of Samour

    571 F.2d 559 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 26 times
    Noting the rule in the § 103 context and declining to extend that rule to § 102(b) rejections

  10. Hughes Tool Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.

    816 F.2d 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    In Hughes, the Federal Circuit set aside the district court's royalty award as arbitrary because it was based on a clearly erroneous profits figure.

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,143 times   481 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 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)

  13. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  14. Section 42.64 - Objection; motion to exclude

    37 C.F.R. § 42.64   Cited 4 times   24 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition evidence. An objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition, unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other evidence. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection to evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be filed within ten business days of the institution of the trial. Once a trial

  15. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,