§

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.

09364803 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,714 times   164 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. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 327 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  3. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  4. In re Robertson

    169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   446 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."

  6. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,937 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  7. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  8. Section 42.301 - Definitions

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

  9. 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

  10. Section 42.208 - Institution of post-grant review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.208   Cited 5 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