§

Koninklijke Philips N.V.

IPR2020-00754 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2020)
Koninklijke Philips N.V.

8 Cited authorities

  1. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 261 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  2. Texas Instruments v. Cypress Semiconductor

    90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 264 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory expert testimony as to the overall similarity of a claim limitation and the alleged corresponding element in the accused product was insufficient to establish equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents

  3. Samsung Elecs. Am. v. Prisua Eng'g Corp.

    948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 47 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTAB may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in IPR because, "although indefiniteness analysis involves general claim construction principles . . . it does not follow that the Board may exceed its statutorily limited authority simply because an indefiniteness issue arises during claim construction. Instead . . . Congress viewed a challenge based on indefiniteness to be distinct from a challenged based on sections 102 and 103."

  4. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu

    891 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 45 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Finding challenge to action of Patent Trial and Appeal Board as ultra vires waivable

  5. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.

    815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 39 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No. 2015–1072. 03-01-2016 HARMONIC INC., Appellant v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. Boris Feldman, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by James C. Yoon; Michael T. Rosato, Seattle, WA; Robin L. Brewer, San Francisco, CA; Gideon A. Schor, New York, NY; Richard Torczon, Washington, DC. Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David B. Cochran, Joseph M. Sauer, Cleveland, OH; Matthew Johnson

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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."

  7. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 377 times   632 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  8. Section 2 - Powers and duties

    35 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 115 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Patent Office to cover the expenses of "persons" other than federal employees attending programs on intellectual-property protection