§

Arc Medical Design Limited

IPR2021-00707 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2021)
Arc Medical Design Limited

8 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,715 times   164 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. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 871 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that after initial examination the claim in suit “[did] not necessarily require” that a surgical device be “pleated” but that arguments made during reexamination constituted a “clear disclaimer of scope” requiring “pleating”

  3. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  4. In re Gurley

    27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 100 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

  5. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  6. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,897 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  7. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   625 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  8. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 43 times   246 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner