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

Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

Technology v. Videotek

Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Holding that the USPTO is not required to reopen the record or permit new briefing

In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

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

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.

In re Fine

Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

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 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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

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

Section 312 - Petitions

Governing inter partes reexamination

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"