§

8204717 et al.

90020121 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2019)
8204717 et al.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,885 times   168 Legal Analyses
    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"

  2. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC

    921 F.3d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing circumstances where “familial patents inform the construction of a claim term and are appropriately treated as intrinsic evidence.”

  3. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  4. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Moyer

    417 F. Supp. 3d 1388 (W.D. Wash. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    CASE NO. C19-1176 RSM 10-24-2019 AMAZON.COM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Philip MOYER, Defendant. Bradley Lloyd Fisher, Jordan Clark, Zana Bugaighis, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. Joanna T. Perini-Abbott, Pro Hac Vice, Tyler Paul Francis, Angeli Law Group LLC, Portland, OR, for Defendant. RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Bradley Lloyd Fisher, Jordan Clark, Zana Bugaighis, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. Joanna T. Perini-Abbott, Pro Hac Vice,

  5. In the Matter of the U.S.'s Application for a Search Warrant to Seize and Search Elec. Devices From Edward Cunnius.

    770 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (W.D. Wash. 2011)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2:11–mj–00055–JPD–JLR. 2011-02-11 In the Matter of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT TO SEIZE AND SEARCH ELECTRONIC DEVICES FROM EDWARD CUNNIUS. Memorandum Order Denying The Government's Application For a Warrant to Seize and Search Electronic Devices Memorandum Order Denying The Government's Application For a Warrant to Seize and Search Electronic Devices JAMES P. DONOHUE, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction and Summary Conclusion This matter comes before

  6. United States v. Patrakis

    297 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Haw. 2017)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    CR 17–00109 LEK 12-21-2017 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Michael Phillip PATRAKIS, Defendant. Darren W.K. Ching, Jill Otake, Office of the United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff. Keith S. Shigetomi, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant. Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge Darren W.K. Ching, Jill Otake, Office of the United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff. Keith S. Shigetomi, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL PATRAKIS' MOTION TO SUPPRESS

  7. Google, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 10-743C (Fed. Cl. Jan. 4, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Holding protestor had standing because it had been "deprived of the opportunity to compete"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,169 times   492 Legal Analyses
    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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1027 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  11. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  12. Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.550   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings

  13. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 9 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence