§

Boston Scientific Corporation v. UAB Research Foundation

09391026 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2015)
Boston Scientific Corporation v. UAB Research Foundation

6 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 750 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  3. Torpharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals

    336 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Suggesting courts may consider unpatented inventions as prior art for purposes of an obviousness inquiry

  4. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.

    469 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 32 times
    Affirming the district court's holding of invalidity despite the court's statement that “[t]here is no indication that the [motivation to combine] was non-obvious,” because the district court's opinion as a whole indicated it “correctly allocated the burden of proof”

  5. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 381 times   636 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  6. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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