§

Google Inc. v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C.

09699705 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015)
Google Inc. v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 615 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International

    316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 244 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the term "vivid color appearance" not indefinite when the specification presented a formula for calculating the differential effect for a number of examples, which determined whether or not they had a "vivid colored appearance"

  3. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, without any of the necessary factual determinations underlying an obviousness inquiry, the appellate court could not undertake any review in the first instance

  4. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  5. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  6. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., Llc.

    778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 11 times   21 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1301. 2015-02-4 In re CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. Timothy M. Salmon, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, of Basking Ridge, NJ, argued for appellant. Of counsel on the brief was John R. Kasha, Kasha Law LLC, of North Potomac, MD. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. With him on the brief were Scott C. Weidenfeller and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitors. DYK Affirmed. Newman, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion

  7. B.E. Tech., LLC v. Google Inc.

    No.: 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. May. 24, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    No.: 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp 05-24-2013 B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. Jon P. McCalla ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Before the Court is Defendant Google Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "Google") Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed December 18, 2012. (ECF No. 22.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND This case concerns Defendant Google's alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 6,628,314 (the "'314 patent")

  8. B.E. Tech., LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    No.: 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Jul. 16, 2013)

    No.: 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp 07-16-2013 B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Jon P. McCalla ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Before the Court is Defendant Microsoft Corporation's ("Defendant" or "Microsoft") Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed January 18, 2013. (ECF No. 30.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND This case concerns Defendant Microsoft's alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 6,628

  9. Meitzner v. Mindick

    549 F.2d 775 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 76-577. February 24, 1977. Rehearing Denied April 28, 1977. Eugene Sabol, Fisher, Christen Sabol, Washington, D.C., attys. of record, for appellants; George W.F. Simmons, Robert A. Doherty, Rohm Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. Herbert B. Keil, Michael P. Bucklo, Johnston, Keil, Thompson Shurtleff, Chicago, Ill., David B. Kellom, Bernd W. Sandt, Midland, Mich., attys. of record, for appellees. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 378 times   633 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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 161 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 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  17. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 16 times   38 Legal Analyses

    (a)Relief. Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion. (b)Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding. (c)Burden of proof. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. (d)Briefing. The Board may order briefing on any issue involved in the trial. 37 C.F

  18. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 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,