§

Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.

10345390 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2015)
Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.

19 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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,158 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 152 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no motivation to combine where "doctors were not using the disclosed devices and methods to heal wounds with negative pressure because they did not believe that these devices were capable of such healing"

  4. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 324 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  5. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi

    181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 190 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to consider arguments that were adopted by reference but not actually made in appellate briefs because "adoption by reference amounts to a self-help increase in the length of the appellate brief"

  6. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  7. Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.

    724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 68 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Vacating in part and reversing in part the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant where the evidence pertaining to objective considerations raised genuine issues of material fact on the issue of obviousness

  8. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.

    679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 64 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court committed error by “us[ing] the invention to define the problem that the invention solves”

  9. Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Products

    840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a patentee can prove infringement by showing that just "some samples" or even "a sample" of the product is found to meet all the limitations of a patent's claims

  10. Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. United States

    702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 81 times
    Addressing obviousness

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,066 times   464 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."

  12. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 371 times   628 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 312 - Petitions

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

  14. Section 313 - Preliminary response to petition

    35 U.S.C. § 313   Cited 53 times   4 Legal Analyses

    If an inter partes review petition is filed under section 311, the patent owner shall have the right to file a preliminary response to the petition, within a time period set by the Director, that sets forth reasons why no inter partes review should be instituted based upon the failure of the petition to meet any requirement of this chapter. 35 U.S.C. § 313 Added Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4604(a)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-568; amended Pub. L. 107-273, div. C, title

  15. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  16. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 27 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"

  17. Section 42.22 - Content of petitions and motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.22   Cited 14 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a) Each petition or motion must be filed as a separate paper and must include: (1) A statement of the precise relief requested; and (2) A full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent. (b)Relief requested. Where a rule in part 1 of this title ordinarily governs the relief sought, the petition or motion must make any showings required under that rule

  18. Section 42.6 - Filing of documents, including exhibits; service

    37 C.F.R. § 42.6   Cited 9 times   43 Legal Analyses

    (a)General format requirements. (1) Page size must be 81/2 inch * 11 inch except in the case of exhibits that require a larger size in order to preserve details of the original. (2) In documents, including affidavits, created for the proceeding: (i) Markings must be in black or must otherwise provide an equivalent dark, high-contrast image; (ii) 14-point, Times New Roman proportional font, with normal spacing, must be used; (iii) Double spacing must be used except in claim charts, headings, tables