Gen. Access Sols. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

4 Citing cases

  1. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC

    70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    As the Seventh Circuit articulated in United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991), "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs." We echoed that refrain in General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (unpublished), explaining that the Board should not be forced to "play arch[a]eologist with the record." See also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866- 67 (7th Cir. 1999) ("A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.").

  2. Laitram, LLC v. Ashworth Bros.

    No. 2022-1044 (Fed. Cir. May. 15, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    First, Laitram did not make this argument until its sur-reply, and so it is forfeited. See, e.g., General Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 Fed.Appx. 654, 658 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.")). Second, even if this argument were not forfeited, the Board relied on substantial evidence in finding that the "occasional slippage" of individual rods in Roinestad '430 does not mean that Roinestad '430 experiences "slip" as used in the patents.

  3. LSI Corp. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn.

    43 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2022)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Because we conclude that the reply brief and accompanying declaration exceeded the scope of the reply under § 42.23(b), and, therefore, that the Board did not abuse its discretion in excluding those documents, we need not ... review the Board's conclusion that, even if proper, the arguments contained in the reply brief are unpersuasive for the same reason it found the arguments in the petition unpersuasive. Id. at 1370 (emphasis added); see alsoGen. Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. , 811 F. App'x 654, 659 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Because we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to address the improperly incorporated documents, we do not reach the question of whether the Board erred in its alternative holding that evaluated those materials ...."). We affirm the Board's conclusion of untimeliness because LSI forfeited any challenge to the untimeliness holding by failing to challenge it in its opening brief on appeal, and the Board's timeliness holding constitutes an independent ground for its decision.

  4. 3M Co. v. Evergreen Adhesives, Inc.

    No. 2020-1738 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 25, 2021)   1 Legal Analyses

    3M did not cite and seek to distinguish cases in which we have upheld, on the abuse of discretion standard of review, the Board's enforcement of § 42.6(a)(3) by rejection of expert declarations incorporated by reference into other documents. See, e.g., Gen. Access Solutions Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 Fed.Appx. 654 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Bos. Sci. Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 813 Fed.Appx. 572 (2020). At issue in this appeal is 3M's obviousness Ground 4, in which 3M asserted that various claims of the '056 patent (including dependent claims 3 and 4, the claims on appeal) would have been obvious over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0161056 (the "Carnahan Publication") in view of U.S. Patent No. 5, 931, 354 ("Braud") and the knowledge of a person of skill in the art.