§
ACQIS LLC

14 Cited authorities

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

    212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 381 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”

  2. Harari v. Lee

    656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 47 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."

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. Harari v. Hollmer

    602 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Hollmer, we held that the same incorporation language that is before us in Lee and Mihnea was sufficient to identify the '579 application.

  6. Pregis Corporation v. Doll

    698 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Va. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 1:09cv467 (GBL). March 16, 2010 Tommy Port Beaudreau, Brian Taylor Sumner, Michael Arthur Umayam, Steven Alerding, Tyler Christopher Southall, Fried Frank Harris Shriver Jacobson, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., United States Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA, Bradley Charles Wright, Christopher Barron Roth, Banner Witcoff LTD., Washington, DC, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION GERALD LEE, District JudgeWest Page 588 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant

  7. 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"

  8. Application of Fouche

    439 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 23 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8484. April 22, 1971. John F. Witherspoon, Harold C. Wegner, Arlington, Va., attorneys of record, for appellant. Stevens, Davis, Miller Mosher, Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., Henry W. Tarring II, Falls Church, Va., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,417 times   1066 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

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,029 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 604 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  12. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 380 times   635 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  13. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   252 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

  14. Section 1.77 - Arrangement of application elements

    37 C.F.R. § 1.77   Cited 8 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) The elements of the application, if applicable, should appear in the following order: (1) Utility application transmittal form. (2) Fee transmittal form. (3) Application data sheet (see § 1.76 ). (4) Specification. (5) Drawings. (6) The inventor's oath or declaration. (b) The specification should include the following sections in order: (1) Title of the invention, which may be accompanied by an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant (unless included