§
Bromium, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 661 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

  2. Rowe v. Dror

    112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 230 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "balloon angioplasty catheter" in preamble to claim was structural limitation

  3. Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.

    717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 124 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claim language fully supports" the court's claim construction and that the construction was further supported by the specification describing the term as part of the "present invention" that was disclosed in every embodiment

  4. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  5. Boehringer Ingelheim v. Schering-Plough

    320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 139 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the court "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party . . . disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury was not required to believe"

  6. Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.

    952 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 79 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining how we first, and primarily, rely on intrinsic evidence like claim language when construing claim terms

  7. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  8. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    457 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden is on the patentee to demonstrate that the alleged equivalent was unforeseeable

  9. Kaken Pharm. Co. v. Iancu

    952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2018-2232 03-13-2020 KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., Bausch Health Companies Inc., Appellants v. Andrei IANCU, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor John D. Livingstone, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellants. Also represented by Jeffrey Jacobstein, Boston, MA; Samhitha Medatia, Anthony a. Hartmann, Cora Renae Holt, Barbara Rudolph, Washington, DC. Nicholas Theodore

  10. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  12. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 782 times   278 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  14. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  15. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  16. Section 3.73 - Establishing right of assignee to take action

    37 C.F.R. § 3.73   Cited 12 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of an application for an original patent, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there is an assignment. (b) In order to request or take action in a trademark matter, the assignee must establish its ownership of the trademark property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment

  17. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and