KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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.

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.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Vivid Technologies v. American Science

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

Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.

Holding that a party that sells or offers to sell software containing instructions to perform the patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271

In re Kahn

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

Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.

Holding that there is no duty to disclose a mere "conception" because it is not material

Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal

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

Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.

Vacating in part and reversing in part the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant where the evidence pertaining to objective considerations raised genuine issues of material fact on the issue of obviousness

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

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 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Section 1 - Establishment

Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

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

Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

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

Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"