§
ACQIS LLC

20 Cited authorities

  1. In re Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 518 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  2. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University

    212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 380 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”

  3. Harari v. Lee

    656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 46 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Baldwin, however, does not set a hard and fast rule that 'a' always means one or more than one. Instead, we read the limitation in light of the claim and specification to discern its meaning."

  4. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.

    393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 53 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding examiner demand, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105, for “information that the applicant is in the best position to most cheaply provide”

  5. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.

    838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 14 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing that "statutes ‘closely related’ to the decision whether to institute are necessarily, and at least, those that define the metes and bounds of the ... review process"

  6. Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Bank

    887 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 12 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "it would be improper to place the burden on the public to unearth and decipher a priority claim when the ‘patentee is the person best suited to understand the genealogy and relationship of her applications,’ and a ‘requirement for her to clearly disclose this information should present no hardship’ "

  7. Hollmer v. Harari

    681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1276. 2012-08-24 Shane C. HOLLMER and Lee E. Cleveland, Appellants, v. Eliyahou HARARI and Sanjay Mehrotra, Appellees. Deanne E. Maynard, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With her on the brief were Alexander J. Hadjis and Kristin L. Yohannan; and Gregory W. Reilly, of San Diego, CA. Of counsel on the brief were Martin C. Fliesler and Joseph P. O'Malley, Fliesler Meyer LLP, of San Francisco, CA. William A. Birdwell, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, of Portland

  8. Nat. Alts. Int'l, Inc. v. Iancu

    904 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 8 times
    Noting that patent applicants may "disclaim the benefit of earlier filing dates."

  9. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas

    362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 11 times   9 Legal Analyses

    No. 03-1339. DECIDED: March 24, 2004. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 246 F.Supp.2d 460, Leonie M. Brinkema, J. Christopher N. Sipes, Covington Burling, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Raymond T. Chen, Associate

  10. Application of de Seversky

    474 F.2d 671 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that incorporation by reference requires a statement "clearly identifying the subject matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 600 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  14. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 269 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  15. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   249 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner

  16. Section 1.57 - Incorporation by reference

    37 C.F.R. § 1.57   Cited 30 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Allowing disclosures in a U.S. Patent incorporated by reference to provide § 112 support

  17. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A