§

Caterpillar Inc. v. null

29377589 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016)
Caterpillar Inc. v. null

13 Cited authorities

  1. Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa

    543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 368 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design

  2. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 182 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

  3. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

    101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 95 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court's vague description of the concept of a design patent provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to "discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision"

  4. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

    730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 49 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"

  5. In re Borden

    90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 27 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the Board's affirmance of an obviousness rejection where the examiner found "differences between the [prior art] and appellant's design had little or no effect on the overall appearance of the design"

  6. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 39 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  7. Dobson v. Dornan

    118 U.S. 10 (1886)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding the validity of a patent that annexed a photograph instead of describing the design in question in words

  8. Application of Lamb

    286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6614. February 6, 1961. Emery, Whittemore, Sandoe Graham, New York City (Nichol M. Sandoe, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. William Cochran and J.F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,144 times   481 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."

  10. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  11. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  12. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  13. 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,