§
3Shape A/S

14 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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"

  2. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 267 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  3. Pitney Bowes v. Hewlett-Packard Company

    182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,028 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if, "when read in the context of the entire claim," the preamble "recites limitations of the claim., or . . . is `necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to" the claim, the preamble language is properly treated as limiting

  4. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 750 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

  5. Samsung Elecs. Am. v. Prisua Eng'g Corp.

    948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 49 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTAB may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in IPR because, "although indefiniteness analysis involves general claim construction principles . . . it does not follow that the Board may exceed its statutorily limited authority simply because an indefiniteness issue arises during claim construction. Instead . . . Congress viewed a challenge based on indefiniteness to be distinct from a challenged based on sections 102 and 103."

  6. Game & Tech. Co. v. Wargaming Grp.

    942 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 23 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Determining that an issue was forfeited where appellant raised it "only one paragraph" in which appellant "fail[ed] to address, let alone show, any specific errors in the Board's findings"

  7. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.

    868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 13 times   9 Legal Analyses

    2016-2321 08-22-2017 NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellant v. ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Broad Ocean Motor LLC, Broad Ocean Technologies LLC, Appellees Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor Scott R. Brown, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew B. Walters ; Christopher Michael Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas

  8. Okajima v. Bourdeau

    261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing how the prior art typically informs the question of the level of one of ordinary skill

  9. Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp.

    No. 2019-1594 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    2019-1594 2019-1604 2019-1605 04-30-2020 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., Appellant v. COOK GROUP INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC, Cross-Appellants ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor DAVID A. CAINE, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MATTHEW WOLF, Washington, DC. LAURA A. LYDIGSEN, Brinks Gilson & Lione, Chicago, IL, argued for cross-appellants

  10. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  11. 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"

  12. 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)

  13. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  14. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   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,