Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

26 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,568 times 187 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 5,880 times 167 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
Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 1,083 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”
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
In re Wands
858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 345 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."
3M Innovative Prop. v. Avery Dennison C
350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 164 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "multiple embossed patterns" did not import a process limitation into a structural claim
In re Kahn
441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 149 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal
872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 82 times 62 Legal Analyses
Addressing whether the language of § 316(e), which all conceded applied to challenged claims, "applies equally to proposed substitute claims"
In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.
829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 61 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 6,160 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 6,024 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 316 - Conduct of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 316 Cited 298 times 313 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 318 - Decision of the Board
35 U.S.C. § 318 Cited 162 times 140 Legal Analyses
Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)
Section 312 - Petitions
35 U.S.C. § 312 Cited 128 times 122 Legal Analyses
Governing inter partes reexamination
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"
Section 41.121 - Motions
37 C.F.R. § 41.121 Cited 15 times 77 Legal Analyses
(a)Types of motions - (1)Substantive motions. Consistent with the notice of requested relief, if any, and to the extent the Board authorizes, a party may file a motion: (i) To redefine the scope of the contested case, (ii) To change benefit accorded for the contested subject matter, or (iii) For judgment in the contested case. (2)Responsive motions. The Board may authorize a party to file a motion to amend or add a claim, to change inventorship, or otherwise to cure a defect raised in a notice of
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,

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

26 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 “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

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 that "multiple embossed patterns" did not import a process limitation into a structural claim

Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

Addressing whether the language of § 316(e), which all conceded applied to challenged claims, "applies equally to proposed substitute claims"

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"

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"

Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

Governing inter partes reexamination

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"