§

Almirall, LLC

IPR2019-00207 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020)
Almirall, LLC

46 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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. Williams v. Illinois

    567 U.S. 50 (2012)   Cited 993 times
    Holding that a DNA matching process is not testimonial

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,157 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 268 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

  5. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 731 times   4 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

  6. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.

    802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 366 times
    Holding that the district court did not err by declining to construe the term "[b]eing provided to"

  7. Allen Engineering v. Bartell Industries

    299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 497 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite

  8. 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

  9. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.

    464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 134 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding based on the record that "[t]he presence of certain secondary considerations of nonobviousness are insufficient as a matter of law to overcome our conclusion that the evidence only supports a legal conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious"

  10. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.

    392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 132 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that licenses "may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record" (quoting In re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) )

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,844 times   260 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,189 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  13. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 13,514 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,065 times   462 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."

  15. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,752 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

  16. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,846 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  17. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 279 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  18. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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"

  19. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 160 times   137 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  20. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 127 times   116 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  21. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 189 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"

  22. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  23. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 5 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"

  24. Section 42.64 - Objection; motion to exclude

    37 C.F.R. § 42.64   Cited 2 times   23 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition evidence. An objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition, unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other evidence. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection to evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be filed within ten business days of the institution of the trial. Once a trial

  25. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   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,