§

Chervon (HK) Limited

PGR2020-00061 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2020)
Chervon (HK) Limited

13 Cited authorities

  1. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  2. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 58 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the USPTO is not required to reopen the record or permit new briefing

  3. United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

    141 S. Ct. 549 (2020)

    No. 19-1434. 10-13-2020 UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. ARTHREX, INC., et al. Petition for writ of certiorari in No. 19-1434 granted as to Federal Circuit case No. 2018-2140, and petition for writ of certiorari in Nos. 19-1452 and 19-1458 granted, all limited to Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States. The cases is consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

  4. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.

    815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 39 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No. 2015–1072. 03-01-2016 HARMONIC INC., Appellant v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. Boris Feldman, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by James C. Yoon; Michael T. Rosato, Seattle, WA; Robin L. Brewer, San Francisco, CA; Gideon A. Schor, New York, NY; Richard Torczon, Washington, DC. Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David B. Cochran, Joseph M. Sauer, Cleveland, OH; Matthew Johnson

  5. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    953 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 8 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 953 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit addressed a request for rehearing en banc.

  6. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 604 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  7. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 379 times   633 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 271 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  9. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 218 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"

  10. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  11. 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")

  12. 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

  13. Section 42.204 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.204   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    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 certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for post-grant review and that the petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting a post-grant review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in the petition. (b)Identification of challenge. Provide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged