§

Intellectual Ventures I LLC

IPR2014-00504 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2020)
Intellectual Ventures I LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 261 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  2. Sandt Technology v. Resco Metal and Plast

    264 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 170 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is a heavy burden to “introduce clear and convincing evidence on all issues relating to the status of a particular reference as prior art”

  3. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  4. TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co.

    812 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 83 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even disclosed reference may be but-for material where patentee mischaracterized it as non-prior art

  5. Fleming v. Escort Inc.

    774 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 37 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding sufficient corroboration although "none of the corroborating evidence constitute[d] definitive proof of [the inventor’s] account or disclose[d] each claim limitation as written" because "the corroboration requirement has never been so demanding"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,144 times   481 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."

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,014 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A