§

Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

IPR2021-00598 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2021)
Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

9 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 264 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

  3. In re Rouffet

    149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 160 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that objective evidence of nonobviousness [secondary considerations] "includes copying, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, commercial success, unexpected results created by the claimed invention, unexpected properties of the claimed invention, licenses showing industry respect for the invention, and skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention"

  4. Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.

    950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 135 times
    Holding on summary judgment that the claimed invention was obvious, despite "assuming] that a nexus existed," because "secondary considerations did not carry sufficient weight to override a determination of obviousness based on primary considerations"

  5. In re Carlson

    983 F.2d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 16 times

    No. 92-1248. December 16, 1992. As Revised on Petition for Rehearing February 1, 1993. Malcolm L. Moore, Moore Hansen, of Minneapolis, Minn., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Chad A. Klingbeil. Jameson Lee, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Of counsel were John W. Dewhirst, Richard E. Schafer, Albin F. Drost and Lee E. Barrett. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before

  6. Application of Ratti

    270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6452. September 30, 1959. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Raymond L. Greist, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to the

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  8. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 380 times   635 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  9. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   252 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner