§

Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings Inc.

10722364 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2015)
Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings Inc.

27 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,550 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. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

    158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,717 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

  3. Wyers v. Master Lock Co.

    616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 206 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success exist when "it is simply a matter of common sense" to combine known elements of the prior art to solve a known problem

  4. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.

    358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 209 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim language that required heating "dough to a temperature in the range of about 400° F. to 850° F." meant exactly what the ordinary meaning suggested even though all agreed that heating dough itself — rather than the oven — to that temperature would burn the dough to a crisp and leave it as inedible as a "charcoal briquet"

  5. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

    849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 321 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is improper to read a limitation "into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim."

  6. Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.

    122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 244 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 103, "an invention, A’, that is obvious in view of subject matter A, derived from another, is also unpatentable. The obvious invention, A’, may not be unpatentable to the inventor of A, and it may not be unpatentable to a third party who did not receive the disclosure of A, but it is unpatentable to the party who did receive the disclosure" and thus that "subject matter derived from another not only is itself unpatentable to the party who derived it under § 102(f), but, when combined with other prior art, may make a resulting obvious invention unpatentable to that party under a combination of §§ 102(f) and 103."

  7. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 145 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  8. Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp.

    845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that patent's inclusion of examples of "external" plasticizers did not prove that patent claims excluded internal plasticizers

  9. Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.

    655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 89 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to find a claim obvious when the when prior art does not provide "indication of which parameters were critical" or "direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful"

  10. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.

    596 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court was required to grant a new trial because the jury's verdicts ... were irreconcilably inconsistent."

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,667 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,607 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  13. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 13,939 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence is relevant when "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable"

  14. 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."

  15. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,003 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  16. 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"

  17. 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)

  18. 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"

  19. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  20. 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

  21. Section 42.62 - Applicability of the Federal rules of evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 42.62   Cited 5 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a)Generally. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to a proceeding. (b)Exclusions. Those portions of the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to criminal proceedings, juries, and other matters not relevant to proceedings under this subpart shall not apply. (c)Modifications in terminology. Unless otherwise clear from context, the following terms of the Federal Rules of Evidence shall be construed as indicated: Appellate court means United States Court

  22. Section 42.56 - Expungement of confidential information

    37 C.F.R. § 42.56   1 Legal Analyses

    After denial of a petition to institute a trial or after final judgment in a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record. 37 C.F.R. §42.56

  23. 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,