Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Jenam Tech, LLC

21 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,577 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. 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

  3. 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

  4. Technology v. Videotek

    545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 252 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry

  5. In re NuVasive, Inc.

    842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 112 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Vacating and remanding so that an agency could fulfill its obligation to "make the necessary findings and have an adequate evidentiary basis for its findings" and to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action"

  6. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc.

    340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 113 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was error for district court to grant judgment as a matter of law on ground not raised in Rule 50(b) motion

  7. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

    800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 45 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

  8. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.

    841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the patent-at-issue and the asserted prior art were in the same field of endeavor and "reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying address information," based on the same disclosures concerning graphical user interface design based on geography and the supporting expert testimony

  9. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.

    868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 13 times   9 Legal Analyses

    2016-2321 08-22-2017 NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellant v. ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Broad Ocean Motor LLC, Broad Ocean Technologies LLC, Appellees Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor Scott R. Brown, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew B. Walters ; Christopher Michael Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas

  10. Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp.

    No. 2019-1594 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    2019-1594 2019-1604 2019-1605 04-30-2020 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., Appellant v. COOK GROUP INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC, Cross-Appellants ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor DAVID A. CAINE, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MATTHEW WOLF, Washington, DC. LAURA A. LYDIGSEN, Brinks Gilson & Lione, Chicago, IL, argued for cross-appellants

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,973 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 1 - Establishment

    35 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 518 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

  15. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 299 times   314 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  16. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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"

  17. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 164 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  18. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 45 times   252 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner

  19. 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"

  20. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  21. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   3 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,