§

Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC

13212047 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)
Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  2. In re Oelrich

    666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 89 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )

  3. Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.

    CASE NO. 6:13-cv-447-JRG (E.D. Tex. May. 29, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    CASE NO. 6:13-cv-447-JRG CASE NO. 6:13-cv-448-JRG-KNM CASE NO. 6:14-cv-435-JRG-KNM CASE NO. 6:14-cv-992-JRG-KNM 05-29-2015 SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC. et al., Defendants. SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al., Defendants. SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC. et al., Defendants. SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. et al., Defendants. RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MEMORANDUM

  4. Hansgirg v. Kemmer

    102 F.2d 212 (C.C.P.A. 1939)   Cited 57 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 4077. February 27, 1939. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals, Interference No. 73,230. Interference proceeding between Fritz Hansgirg and Frank R. Kemmer. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming decision of the Examiner of Interferences, the former appeals. Reversed. Brown, Critchlow Flick, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Jo. Baily Brown and Fulton B. Flick, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellant. H.C. Bierman, of New York City,

  5. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,942 times   958 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  6. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  7. Section 42.301 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.301   Cited 21 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Defining the scope of CBM review

  8. Section 42.300 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.300   Cited 13 times   10 Legal Analyses

    (a) A covered business method patent review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part and is also subject to the post-grant review procedures set forth in subpart C except for §§ 42.200 , 42.201 , 42.202 , and 42.204 . (b) In a covered business method patent review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221 , shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil

  9. Section 42.24 - Type-volume or page limits for petitions, motions, oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

    37 C.F.R. § 42.24   Cited 7 times   31 Legal Analyses

    (a)Petitions and motions. (1) The following word counts or page limits for petitions and motions apply and include any statement of material facts to be admitted or denied in support of the petition or motion. The word count or page limit does not include a table of contents, a table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8 , a certificate of service or word count, or appendix of exhibits or claim listing. (i) Petition requesting inter partes review: 14,000 words. (ii) Petition requesting post-grant

  10. Section 42.208 - Institution of post-grant review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.208   Cited 5 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. (b) At any time prior to institution of post-grant review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute post-grant review. (c) Post-grant review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented