§

K40 Electronics, LLC v. ESCORT INC.

12195147 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)
K40 Electronics, LLC v. ESCORT INC.

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,521 times   178 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. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

    669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,039 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. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 313 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."

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

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 172 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"

  5. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  6. Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc.

    148 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 158 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence did not meet clear and convincing standard required to show anticipation, despite corroborating testimony of four witnesses, where the witnesses were related to defendant by blood or long friendship, and no corroborating physical evidence was submitted despite defendant's assertion that he had used the invention for more than ten years

  7. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 149 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  8. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  9. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  10. Glass v. Betsey

    3 U.S. 6 (1794)   Cited 3 times

    FEBRUARY TERM, 1794. For the Appellants, the case was briefly opened, upon the following principles. The question is of great importance; and extends to the whole judicial authority of the United States; for, if the admiralty has no jurisdiction, there can be no jurisdiction in any common law court. Nor is it material to distinguish the ownership of the vessel and cargo; since strangers, or aliens, in amity, are entitled equally with Americans to have their property protected by the laws. Vatt. B

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,941 times   957 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   626 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

  14. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 159 times   137 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  15. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 17 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  16. 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,