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"

Phillips v. AWH Corp.

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"

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

Pfizer v. Apotex

Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.)

Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”

In re Gleave

Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.

Finding the existence of a characteristic in one or more, or even all, embodiments not enough to impose a limitation on the claim language

American Calcar v. American Honda Motor Co.

Finding that the term "in response to" connotes that the second events occurs in reaction to the first event."

Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

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."

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 611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination

Rule 807 - Residual Exception

Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates

Permitting duplicates

Section 311 - Inter partes review

Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

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 42.73 - Judgment

Regarding judgments

Section 90.2 - Notice; service