§

Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.

13589777 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2015)
Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.

    908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendment made as of right under MPEP weighs against an inference of intent to deceive

  2. In re Hall

    781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 96 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that competent evidence of the general library practice may be relied upon to establish an approximate time when a thesis became accessible"

  3. In re Lister

    583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 37 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reference archived in an on-line database searchable by keyword qualified as printed publication

  4. IN RE WYER

    655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 61 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding laid-open Australian patent was a printed publication where microfilm copy was available to the public at patent office and abstract was published

  5. Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Tiny Love, Ltd.

    914 F. Supp. 1068 (D.N.J. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    Civ. No. 95-1135 (HAA). January 23, 1996. Singer Goger, Newark, N.J., Susan S. Singer, Patch Schwas Jacobs Nadel, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., Roberta Jacobs- Meadway, for Plaintif/Counterclaim Defendant. Hartman, Winnicki Finnerty, P.C., Paramus, N.J., Warren S. Robbins, Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, LLP, New York City, Robert C. Faber, Douglas A. Miro, for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. OPINION HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge. On March 7, 1995, plaintiff, Tyco Industries, Inc. ("Tyco"), initiated

  6. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  7. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 408 times   203 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  8. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A