§

CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC

08727409 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)
CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC

22 Cited authorities

  1. Taylor v. Sturgell

    553 U.S. 880 (2008)   Cited 3,183 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,724 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  3. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

    669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,041 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

  4. Scimed Life Sys. v. Adv. Cardiovascular

    242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 861 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that description of "present invention" in specification is limiting on claim

  5. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 586 times   76 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  6. Gentry Gallery Inc. v. the Berkline Corp.

    134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 209 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim “may be no broader than the supporting disclosure”

  7. JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.

    424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 142 times
    Holding a court should "not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent's written description, even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment"

  8. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.

    789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 93 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the Board's construction of key claim terms was unreasonably broad in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and on that basis vacating and remanding the Board's finding of unpatentability

  9. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  10. Killip v. Office of Personnel Management

    991 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that OPM is not permitted to consider retirement elections where the statute does not grant authority to do so

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,283 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,942 times   959 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,415 times   2196 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  14. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 538 times   883 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  15. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 397 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  16. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   627 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  17. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 269 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  18. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 127 times   116 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  19. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 188 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"

  20. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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

  21. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"