§

Cochlear Limited

IPR2019-00975 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020)
Cochlear Limited

31 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. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,813 times   166 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"

  4. 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

  5. Pitney Bowes v. Hewlett-Packard Company

    182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,019 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if, "when read in the context of the entire claim," the preamble "recites limitations of the claim., or . . . is `necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to" the claim, the preamble language is properly treated as limiting

  6. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 744 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  7. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 656 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"

  8. United States v. Adams

    383 U.S. 39 (1966)   Cited 479 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to ignore long-accepted factors in the field of wet batters to arrive at the claimed invention

  9. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.

    848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 745 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of routine business practice can be used to prove that a reference was accessible

  10. Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert

    512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 301 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,144 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. 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."

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,932 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 554 - Adjudications

    5 U.S.C. § 554   Cited 1,042 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."

  15. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  16. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  17. 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"

  18. Section 42.23 - Oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

    37 C.F.R. § 42.23   Cited 42 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Taking testimony

  19. Section 42.120 - Patent owner response

    37 C.F.R. § 42.120   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. A patent owner may file a single response to the petition and/or decision on institution. A patent owner response is filed as an opposition and is subject to the page limits provided in § 42.24 . (b)Due date for response. If no time for filing a patent owner response to a petition is provided in a Board order, the default date for filing a patent owner response is three months from the date the inter partes review was instituted. 37 C.F.R. §42.120 77 FR 48727, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended