KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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"

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

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

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]”

Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc.

Holding that the presumption established by claim differentiation was rebutted because the written description “consistently” referred to the claim term in a specific manner and arguments made during prosecution amounted to a clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope

Micro Chemical v. Great Plains Chemical

Holding district court erroneously overlooked alternative embodiments of the invention when it concluded that the means-plus function clause could only cover the structure of the preferred embodiment

Net Moneyin v. Verisign

Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.

Holding that a dispute about the district court's limitation of the time period during which the jury could find willful infringement was moot in view of the court's determination that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award enhanced damages

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

Holding that it is improper to read a limitation "into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim."

In re Paulsen

Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

Adopting the Daubert standard

Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Section 112 - Specification

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

Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 318 - Decision of the Board

Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

Section 42.23 - Oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

Taking testimony

Section 42.73 - Judgment

Regarding judgments

Section 90.2 - Notice; service