§

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. v. POWER SURVEY LLC

13618718 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. v. POWER SURVEY LLC

23 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,157 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. United States v. Hale

    422 U.S. 171 (1975)   Cited 774 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding silence during a post- Miranda custodial interrogation lacked probative value

  3. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 301 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of royalty rates from licenses without a relationship to the claimed invention could not form the basis of a reasonable royalty calculation

  4. DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc.

    239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 170 times
    Holding that the prosecution history "is considered to determine whether or not there were any express representations made in obtaining the patent regarding the scope and meaning of the claims"

  5. Kyocera Wireless v. I.T.C

    545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 117 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Finding public accessibility when the reference was contained in a book sold to the public

  6. Salazar v. Procter Gamble Co.

    414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 126 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a unilateral statement by a patent examiner in stating his reasons for allowance did not disavow claim scope because " the applicant has disavowed nothing"

  7. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.

    810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 201 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that §§ 103 and 102 use the same definition of prior art

  8. Riverwood Intern. v. R.A. Jones Co.

    324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that regional circuit law applies to the procedural aspects of a motion for new trial

  9. Abbott Lab. v. Baxter Pharmaceutical

    334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 94 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the customary usage of "effective amount" was an amount sufficient to achieve the claimed effect

  10. SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.

    511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 53 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that paper on FTP website, while publicly available, was not publicly accessible because it was “not catalogued or indexed in a meaningful way”

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   459 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,942 times   958 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   627 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  14. Section 42.107 - Preliminary response to petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.107   Cited 93 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Requiring initiation of IPR within six months of filing and a decision within twelve months thereafter

  15. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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

  16. Section 1.97 - Filing of information disclosure statement

    37 C.F.R. § 1.97   Cited 39 times   20 Legal Analyses

    (a) In order for an applicant for a patent or for a reissue of a patent to have an information disclosure statement in compliance with § 1.98 considered by the Office during the pendency of the application, the information disclosure statement must satisfy one of paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section. (b) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant within any one of the following time periods: (1) Within three months of the filing date of