Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Al-Ko Kober, LLC v. Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc.

13180671 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2014)
Al-Ko Kober, LLC v. Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc.

29 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,889 times   170 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. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 523 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  3. B. Braun Medical v. Abbott Laboratories

    124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 511 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's pre- Markman failure to instruct the jury on the construction of a means-plus-function limitation was harmless because the jury adopted the correct construction

  4. Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries

    126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 487 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a claim recites a function, but goes on to elaborate sufficient structure, the claim is not in means-plus-function format

  5. Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.

    939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 398 times
    Holding that the doctrine of claim differentiation yields to an interpretation mandated by § 112, ¶ 6

  6. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.

    833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 344 times
    Holding that a "device that does not satisfy [a claim limitation] at least equivalently does not function in substantially the same way as the claimed invention," and thus cannot infringe under the doctrine of equivalents

  7. Wenger Mfg. v. Coating Machinery Systems

    239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 212 times
    Holding that claim limitation using the term "means for" and not reciting any structure presumptively falls within the scope of § 112, ¶ 6

  8. Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude Medical

    296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 187 times
    Holding that it is improper to limit a function beyond what is stated in the claim

  9. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  10. Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co.

    983 F.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 183 times
    Holding that section 112, ¶ 6, permits the use of means-plus-function language in claims, but with the proviso that the claims are limited to the structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification and their equivalents

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1069 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 381 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"

  15. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  16. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 46 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  17. Section 42.63 - Form of evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 42.63   Cited 2 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a)Exhibits required. Evidence consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit. (b)Translation required. When a party relies on a document or is required to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation must be filed with the document. (c)Exhibit numbering. Each party's exhibits must be uniquely numbered sequentially