§

GroupON, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, Llc.

13423048 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2014)
GroupON, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, Llc.

34 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,889 times   170 Legal Analyses
    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"

  2. Pitney Bowes v. Hewlett-Packard Company

    182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,028 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if, "when read in the context of the entire claim," the preamble "recites limitations of the claim., or . . . is `necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to" the claim, the preamble language is properly treated as limiting

  3. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 661 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

  4. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 284 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  5. Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.

    323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 200 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preamble limited claim where claim referred to “said vehicle master clutch” and “said drive train” and those terms were described in the preamble

  6. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  7. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 150 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  8. In re Klopfenstein

    380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 79 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether a reference is publicly accessible is based on the “facts and circumstances surrounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public”

  9. SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.

    511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 55 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that paper on FTP website, while publicly available, was not publicly accessible because it was “not catalogued or indexed in a meaningful way”

  10. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co.

    242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 66 times
    Finding that preamble term limited claim because the term was used in the specification as well as in all of the claims

  11. 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,030 times   1028 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 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 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  15. Section 328 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 328   Cited 11 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a) FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.-If a post-grant review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 326(d). (b) CERTIFICATE.-If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director shall issue

  16. Section 42.301 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.301   Cited 21 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Defining the scope of CBM review

  17. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  18. Section 42.300 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.300   Cited 13 times   10 Legal Analyses

    (a) A covered business method patent review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part and is also subject to the post-grant review procedures set forth in subpart C except for §§ 42.200 , 42.201 , 42.202 , and 42.204 . (b) In a covered business method patent review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221 , shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil

  19. Section 42.302 - Who may petition for a covered business method patent review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.302   Cited 4 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a petitioner for CBM review must have been "sued for infringement or ... charged with infringement" and then defining only "charged with infringement"

  20. Section 42.304 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.304   3 Legal Analyses

    In addition to any other notices required by subparts A and C of this part, a petition must request judgment against one or more claims of a patent identified by patent number. In addition to the requirements of §§ 42.6 , 42.8 , 42.22 , and 42.24 the petition must set forth: (a)Grounds for standing. The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302 . (b)Identification

  21. 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,