§

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.

10764076 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2013)
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,844 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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,181 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Avia Group International, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.

    853 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 365 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parties moving for summary judgment bear burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute

  4. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 145 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  5. Nutrition 21 v. U.S.

    930 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 206 times
    Holding that a seven-month delay in bringing suit was sufficient to negate irreparable harm

  6. Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.

    655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 89 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to find a claim obvious when the when prior art does not provide "indication of which parameters were critical" or "direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful"

  7. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  8. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming an obviousness determination where the patentee was confronted with a limited number of options for modifying a prior art pharmaceutical composition

  9. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  10. 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,005 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  13. 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"

  14. Section 42.301 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.301   Cited 21 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Defining the scope of CBM review

  15. Section 42.300 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.300   Cited 13 times   10 Legal Analyses

    (a) A covered business method patent review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part and is also subject to the post-grant review procedures set forth in subpart C except for §§ 42.200 , 42.201 , 42.202 , and 42.204 . (b) In a covered business method patent 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

  16. Section 42.208 - Institution of post-grant review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.208   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. (b) At any time prior to institution of post-grant review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute post-grant review. (c) Post-grant review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented