§

Heartbeet Ltd.

PGR2021-00094 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2022)
Heartbeet Ltd.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,851 times   167 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. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

    669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,076 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

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

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 611 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]”

  4. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 748 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  5. Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc.

    339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 179 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding sufficient evidence to support finding that there was “some connection” between two parties jointly performing method claim

  6. University, Rochester v. G.D. Searle Co.

    358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 139 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding the patent invalid because "Rochester did not present any evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to identify any compound based on [the specification's] vague functional description"

  7. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.

    772 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " party asserting invalidity based on 35 U.S. § 112 bears no less a burden and no fewer responsibilities than any other patent challenger"

  8. Capon v. Eshhar

    418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 68 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was error for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to require "recitation in the specification of the nucleotide sequence of claimed DNA, when that sequence is already known in the field"

  9. Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield

    208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the application need only contain information sufficient for “persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed”

  10. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin

    93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 78 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 17-month delay did not warrant inference of suppression or concealment due to, among other things, "the complexity of the subject matter"

  11. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 601 times   112 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  12. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 271 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  13. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 217 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"

  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 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 39 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")

  16. Section 42.200 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.200   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) A post-grant review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part. (b) In a post-grant 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 action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b) , including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in

  17. Section 42.204 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.204   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    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 certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for post-grant review and that the petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting a post-grant review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in the petition. (b)Identification of challenge. Provide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged