§

Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

8978798 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)
Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 25,399 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  2. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 45 times   252 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

  3. Section 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 41 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")

  4. Section 42.208 - Institution of post-grant review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.208   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. (b) At any time prior to institution of post-grant review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute post-grant review. (c) Post-grant review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented

  5. Section 42.302 - Who may petition for a covered business method patent review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.302   Cited 4 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a petitioner for CBM review must have been "sued for infringement or ... charged with infringement" and then defining only "charged with infringement"

  6. Section 42.304 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.304   3 Legal Analyses

    In addition to any other notices required by subparts A and C of this part, a petition must request judgment against one or more claims of a patent identified by patent number. In addition to the requirements of §§ 42.6 , 42.8 , 42.22 , and 42.24 the petition must set forth: (a)Grounds for standing. The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302 . (b)Identification