APPLIED PREDICTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 272 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable
  2. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,487 times   2271 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
  3. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 375 times   632 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
  4. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"
  5. Section 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 38 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")
  6. Section 323 - Preliminary response to petition

    35 U.S.C. § 323   Cited 3 times

    If a post-grant review petition is filed under section 321, 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 post-grant review should be instituted based upon the failure of the petition to meet any requirement of this chapter. 35 U.S.C. § 323 Added Pub. L. 112-29, §6(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 306. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATESection effective upon the expiration