§

TerraLithium LLC

IPR2019-01601 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2020)
TerraLithium LLC

10 Cited authorities

  1. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 13,185 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

  2. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  3. Wasica Fin. GMBH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc.

    853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 94 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding no anticipation by a genus disclosure that was "too ambiguous" and too broad for an ordinary skilled artisan to "at once envisage" every member of the genus

  4. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc.

    311 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that the term "substantially constant wall thickness" was not impermissibly indefinite even though "[i]t may of course occur that persons experienced in a technologic field will have divergent opinions as to the meaning of a term"

  5. In re Oelrich

    666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 93 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )

  6. Tassin v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

    946 F. Supp. 1241 (M.D. La. 1996)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that for an expert's opinion to be considered reliable he must use the methodology of experts in his particular field

  7. Application of Hughes

    52 C.C.P.A. 1355 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 20 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7312. May 20, 1965. John A. Blair, Detroit, Mich., C. Willard Hayes, Washington, D.C., Everett R. Casey, Detroit, Mich., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. SMITH, Judge. Claims 1-16 of appellant's application stand rejected, and the threshold question is, on what ground? Neither the examiner nor the Board of Appeals

  8. Application of Turlay

    304 F.2d 893 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6816. July 25, 1962. George H. Willits, Alexander F. Baillio, Lewis D. Burch Doonan Dwight McGraw, Detroit, Mich. (Frank J. Soucek, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated

  9. 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"

  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