§

HTC Corporation v. NFC Technology, LLC

09962889 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016)
HTC Corporation v. NFC Technology, LLC

38 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 Legal Analyses
    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"

  2. 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"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 750 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. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 319 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  6. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 290 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

  7. Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

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

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 178 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  9. 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

  10. Purdue Pharma v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH

    237 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that the accused product infringes under the court's claim construction, and the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff made a "strong showing of a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed on the merits of its infringement claim."

  11. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 14,174 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" and "the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

  12. 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,690 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

  15. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 410 times   205 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  16. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 298 times   314 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  17. 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"

  18. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 162 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  19. Section 104 - Repealed

    35 U.S.C. § 104   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses

    35 U.S.C. § 104 Pub. L. 112-29, §3(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 287 Section, act July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 798; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 94-131, §6, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 691; Pub. L. 98-622, title IV, §403(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3392; Pub. L. 103-182, title III, §331, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2113; Pub. L. 103-465, title V, §531(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4982; Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat

  20. 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"

  21. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  22. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   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,