§

Biotronik, Inc. v. Atlas IP, LLC

08011415 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2015)
Biotronik, Inc. v. Atlas IP, LLC

11 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,545 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,813 times   166 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"

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

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 140 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 Rambus Inc.

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

  5. Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.

    804 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    No. 2015–1190. 2015-10-29 ATLAS IP, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., Defendants–Appellees. George C. Summerfield, Jr., Stadheim & Grear, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Rolf Stadheim, Robert M. Spalding. Mark Andrew Perry, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Wayne M. Barsky, Jennifer Rho, Los Angeles, CA; Hervey Mark Lyon, Palo Alto, CA; Neema Jalali

  6. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,124 times   478 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,990 times   998 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  9. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  10. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  11. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,