§

IPA Technologies Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN Technologies Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc.

IPR2019-00728 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2020)
IPA Technologies Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN Technologies Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc.

29 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 346 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"

  2. Finnigan Corp. v. Inter. Trade Comm

    180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a witness's testimony of an invalidating public use must be corroborated to satisfy the interested party's burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence

  3. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  4. Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. Ips Grp., Inc.

    914 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 80 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit explains that the addition of the modifier “entirely” can result in a “much narrower” claim limitation than the plain meaning.

  5. Typeright Keyboard v. Microsoft Corp.

    374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in some circumstances, summary judgment may be inappropriate when the credibility of an affiant is drawn into question

  6. Riverwood Intern. v. R.A. Jones Co.

    324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that regional circuit law applies to the procedural aspects of a motion for new trial

  7. Lazare Kaplan Intern v. Photoscribe Tech

    628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming finding of prior art based on testimony corroborated by contract and operation manual made contemporaneously with alleged prior art invention

  8. Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

    754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 53 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming judgment that claims were not inherently anticipated where the prior art only showed that the limitation might occur, not that it inevitably occurred

  9. EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.

    859 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 18 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding a violation of the APA when the Board invalidated a claim based on a reference that the petitioner did not substantively rely upon, but only broadly alleged as relevant, with respect to that particular claim

  10. Okajima v. Bourdeau

    261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing how the prior art typically informs the question of the level of one of ordinary skill

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,704 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 14,017 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence is relevant at trial if "it has any tendency to make a fact" that "is of consequence" to the "determin[ation] [of] the action" any "more or less probable"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   482 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."

  14. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,016 times   1014 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  15. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,357 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  16. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 4,042 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  17. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,648 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"

  18. Rule 807 - Residual Exception

    Fed. R. Evid. 807   Cited 1,631 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

  19. Rule 1002 - Requirement of the Original

    Fed. R. Evid. 1002   Cited 1,138 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required"

  20. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 294 times   311 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  21. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  22. Section 42.53 - Taking testimony

    37 C.F.R. § 42.53   Cited 4 times   21 Legal Analyses

    (a)Form. Uncompelled direct testimony must be submitted in the form of an affidavit. All other testimony, including testimony compelled under 35 U.S.C. 24 , must be in the form of a deposition transcript. Parties may agree to video-recorded testimony, but may not submit such testimony without prior authorization of the Board. In addition, the Board may authorize or require live or video-recorded testimony. (b)Time and location. (1) Uncompelled direct testimony may be taken at any time to support

  23. 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,