§

ARM Inc. v. Vantage Point Technology, Inc.

08146818 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2014)
ARM Inc. v. Vantage Point Technology, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,889 times   170 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. Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert

    512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 304 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”

  3. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc.

    174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although the claim elements "eyeglass hanger member" and "eyeglass contacting member" include a function, these claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claims themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing these functions

  4. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co.

    208 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that the corresponding structure was not just a "flat rectangle, but a plastic flap that folds over [an] envelope's opening and is secured to the outside of one or both panels of the envelope"

  5. Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.

    122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 198 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Class II medical devices, which are not subject to a “rigorous premarket approval process” and thus cannot receive patent term extensions, are nonetheless covered by the safe harbor

  6. Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc.

    99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 83 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that repeated references in claim to both "a cup" and "the cup" and disclosure of only one cup in drawings and specification indicated that only one cup was involved

  7. In re Rambus Inc.

    694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding support for a broad construction of a claim term by referencing claims in related patents in the patent family

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1068 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  9. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 380 times   635 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  10. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 46 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution