§

Kansas State University Research Foundation

PGR2020-00076 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022)
Kansas State University Research Foundation

27 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,187 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 265 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  3. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 616 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  4. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Lilly & Co.

    119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 333 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that written description requires more than a "mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention"

  5. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  6. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 305 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  7. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc.

    174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although the claim elements "eyeglass hanger member" and "eyeglass contacting member" include a function, these claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claims themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing these functions

  8. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 121 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting petition for rehearing and vacating prior panel decision reported at 285 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

  9. Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.

    950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 135 times
    Holding on summary judgment that the claimed invention was obvious, despite "assuming] that a nexus existed," because "secondary considerations did not carry sufficient weight to override a determination of obviousness based on primary considerations"

  10. Capon v. Eshhar

    418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 68 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was error for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to require "recitation in the specification of the nucleotide sequence of claimed DNA, when that sequence is already known in the field"

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 28,050 times   292 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 23,670 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

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

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,794 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  14. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,412 times   1063 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  15. Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 402   Cited 7,094 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Stating that relevant evidence is generally admissible at trial

  16. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 4,074 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. Section 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 623 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  18. 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"

  19. Section 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 41 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")

  20. Section 326 - Conduct of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 326   Cited 27 times   23 Legal Analyses

    (a) REGULATIONS.-The Director shall prescribe regulations- (1) providing that the file of any proceeding under this chapter shall be made available to the public, except that any petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion; (2) setting forth the standards for the showing of sufficient grounds to institute a review under subsections (a) and (b) of section 324; (3) establishing

  21. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 16 times   38 Legal Analyses

    (a)Relief. Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion. (b)Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding. (c)Burden of proof. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. (d)Briefing. The Board may order briefing on any issue involved in the trial. 37 C.F

  22. 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"

  23. Section 42.200 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.200   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) A post-grant review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part. (b) In a post-grant review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221 , shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b) , including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in

  24. Section 42.64 - Objection; motion to exclude

    37 C.F.R. § 42.64   Cited 4 times   24 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition evidence. An objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition, unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other evidence. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection to evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be filed within ten business days of the institution of the trial. Once a trial

  25. 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,