§

General Electric Company v. TransData, Inc.

09769838 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2015)
General Electric Company v. TransData, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Taylor v. Sturgell

    553 U.S. 880 (2008)   Cited 3,184 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."

  2. Montana v. United States

    440 U.S. 147 (1979)   Cited 3,598 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

  3. Ratzlaf v. United States

    510 U.S. 135 (1994)   Cited 904 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, "[t]o establish that a defendant `willfully violated]' the antistructuring law, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful," and stating that "pecific intent to commit the crime . . . might be negated by, e.g., proof that defendant relied in good faith on advice of counsel"

  4. Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp.

    27 F.3d 751 (1st Cir. 1994)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that for claim preclusion to apply, a litigant first must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claim

  5. Schnell v. Peter Eckrich Sons

    365 U.S. 260 (1961)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of manufacturer for improper venue, as manufacturer's defense of its customer - in a venue where that customer resided - did not make venue proper for non-resident manufacturer

  6. Benson and Ford, Inc. v. Wanda Petroleum Co.

    833 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. 1987)   Cited 80 times
    Finding "tacit agreement" to be bound characteristic of cases applying virtual representation

  7. Jefferson Sch. Science v. Subversive A. Con

    331 F.2d 76 (D.C. Cir. 1963)   Cited 52 times
    Finding privity between two entities where one was “substantially dominated, directed and controlled” by other and “operate[d] primarily to achieve [its] objectives”

  8. Jones v. Craig

    212 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1954)   Cited 8 times

    No. 11948. April 30, 1954. James M. Swiggart, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant. Ferriss C. Bailey, Nashville, Tenn., for appellee. Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and FORD, District Judge. PER CURIAM. This appeal was heard upon the record, briefs and arguments of counsel for the respective parties; And it appearing that in Jones v. Supreme Music Corporation, 101 F. Supp. 989, decided by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff Jones in that action

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   459 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."

  10. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 538 times   883 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  11. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   627 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  12. Section 42.4 - Notice of trial

    37 C.F.R. § 42.4   Cited 54 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"

  13. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  14. Section 42.56 - Expungement of confidential information

    37 C.F.R. § 42.56   1 Legal Analyses

    After denial of a petition to institute a trial or after final judgment in a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record. 37 C.F.R. §42.56