§

GM Global Technology Operations LLC

IPR2020-00534 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)
GM Global Technology Operations LLC

26 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,891 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Holding Texas Digital approach "improperly restricts the role of the specification in claim construction"

  2. Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa

    543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 373 times   41 Legal Analyses
    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

  3. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 185 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

  4. Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.

    122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 248 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 103, "an invention, A’, that is obvious in view of subject matter A, derived from another, is also unpatentable. The obvious invention, A’, may not be unpatentable to the inventor of A, and it may not be unpatentable to a third party who did not receive the disclosure of A, but it is unpatentable to the party who did receive the disclosure" and thus that "subject matter derived from another not only is itself unpatentable to the party who derived it under § 102(f), but, when combined with other prior art, may make a resulting obvious invention unpatentable to that party under a combination of §§ 102(f) and 103."

  5. Richardson v. Stanley Works

    597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 127 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding functional necessity of configuration illustrated by the prior art where "[e]very piece of prior art identified by the parties that incorporates similar elements configures them in the exact same way"

  6. Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.

    728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 202 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the legal effect of labeling may depend on the prominence of the label as well as how expensive and routinely purchased the product is

  7. International Seaway Trading v. Walgreens

    589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 89 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the same test applies as between design-patent infringement and anticipation

  8. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

    101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 96 times   28 Legal Analyses
    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"

  9. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

    730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 49 times   13 Legal Analyses
    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"

  10. Arminak and Assoc. v. Saint-Gobain

    501 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Comparing claimed and accused designs for spray bottle trigger shrouds against prior spray bottle trigger shroud designs

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 times   63 Legal Analyses
    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"

  14. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 164 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  15. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  16. Section 1.152 - Design drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.152   Cited 33 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring design patent drawings to "contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article"

  17. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,