§

KINGBRIGHT ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., KINGBRIGHT CORP., SUNLED CORP., KINGBRIGHT CO. LLC, SUNLED CO. LLC, and SUNSCREEN CO. LTD. v. CREE, INC.

13040088 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2015)
KINGBRIGHT ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., KINGBRIGHT CORP., SUNLED CORP., KINGBRIGHT CO. LLC, SUNLED CO. LLC, and SUNSCREEN CO. LTD. v. CREE, INC.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Nystrom v. Trex Co.

    424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 300 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the law of the regional circuit governs motions for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   453 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."

  3. 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"

  4. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 188 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"

  5. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution