§

Koninklijke Philips N.V.

PGR2021-00116 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2022)
Koninklijke Philips N.V.

26 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,869 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    525 U.S. 55 (1998)   Cited 429 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the invention must be ready for patenting" to trigger the on-sale bar

  3. Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa

    543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 370 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design

  4. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 354 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee had the burden to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date when it was undisputed that a certain reference was invalidating prior art

  5. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 182 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

  6. L.A. GEAR, INC. v. THOM McAN SHOE CO

    988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 217 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant's trade dress was not likely to be confused with that of plaintiff because of conspicuous placement on accused dress of defendant's identifying marks

  7. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

    730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 49 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"

  8. PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a “full inquiry with respect to alleged alternative designs includes a determination as to whether the alleged ‘alternative designs would adversely affect the utility of the specified article’ ”—not the cost or quality of the article

  9. 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

  10. Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc.

    256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff where the case presented a "close call" in certain important respects

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,399 times   1051 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

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,020 times   1020 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 171 - Patents for designs

    35 U.S.C. § 171   Cited 337 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Protecting "any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ...."

  14. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  15. Section 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 40 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")

  16. 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