13 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,574 times 189 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,190 times 68 Legal AnalysesHolding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Vivid Technologies v. American Science
200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 750 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial
Pfizer v. Apotex
480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 383 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art
Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC
805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 115 times 21 Legal AnalysesHolding that a declaration appended to a reply brief "fairly respond[ed] only to arguments made in ... [the patent owner]'s response," as required by § 42.23(b), and that the patent owner had "a meaningful opportunity to respond," as required by the APA
In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.
829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 62 times 19 Legal AnalysesHolding that conclusory statements that "[t]he same analysis" applied to different prior art did not provide sufficient evidence to base its legal conclusion of obviousness
Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.
815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 39 times 8 Legal AnalysesNo. 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
Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.
868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 13 times 9 Legal Analyses2016-2321 08-22-2017 NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellant v. ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Broad Ocean Motor LLC, Broad Ocean Technologies LLC, Appellees Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor Scott R. Brown, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew B. Walters ; Christopher Michael Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,172 times 492 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,030 times 1028 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 311 - Inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 311 Cited 410 times 205 Legal AnalysesEstablishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding
Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 314 Cited 380 times 635 Legal AnalysesDirecting our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
Section 312 - Petitions
35 U.S.C. § 312 Cited 130 times 122 Legal AnalysesGoverning inter partes reexamination