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"

Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa

Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

L.A. GEAR, INC. v. THOM McAN SHOE CO

Holding that defendant's trade dress was not likely to be confused with that of plaintiff because of conspicuous placement on accused dress of defendant's identifying marks

In re Kahn

Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

Holding that a district court's vague description of the concept of a design patent provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to "discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision"

High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.

Holding that "the ordinary observer is deceived by an infringing design as a result of similarities in the overall design, not of similarities in ornamental features considered in isolation" (cleaned up)

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 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

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

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 1.152 - Design drawings

Requiring design patent drawings to "contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article"

Section 42.1 - Policy

Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

Section 90.2 - Notice; service