§

Centripetal Networks, Inc.

IPR2021-01521 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2022)
Centripetal Networks, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    574 U.S. 318 (2015)   Cited 1,282 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo

  2. 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"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,178 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc.

    174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although the claim elements "eyeglass hanger member" and "eyeglass contacting member" include a function, these claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claims themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing these functions

  5. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  6. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.

    868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 13 times   9 Legal Analyses

    2016-2321 08-22-2017 NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellant v. ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Broad Ocean Motor LLC, Broad Ocean Technologies LLC, Appellees Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor Scott R. Brown, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew B. Walters ; Christopher Michael Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas

  7. 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."

  8. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 375 times   632 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  9. Section 42.4 - Notice of trial

    37 C.F.R. § 42.4   Cited 54 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"

  10. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  11. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 28 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"