§

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

12132487 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014)
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.

41 Cited authorities

  1. Duncan v. Walker

    533 U.S. 167 (2001)   Cited 5,479 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition

  2. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

    158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,696 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

  3. Crandon v. United States

    494 U.S. 152 (1990)   Cited 494 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that meaning of statute is to be determined from design of statute as whole and its object and policy, in addition to its language

  4. United States v. James

    478 U.S. 597 (1986)   Cited 230 times
    Finding legislative history did not merit a departure from the plain language of the statute

  5. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 278 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  6. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 469 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  7. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 392 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  8. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 298 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  9. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

    849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 319 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is improper to read a limitation "into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim."

  10. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc.

    222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 208 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the public is entitled to rely on the patentee's representations in the prosecution history concerning the scope and meaning of the claims

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,283 times   1028 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,060 times   453 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,941 times   957 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 593 times   108 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  15. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

  16. 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"

  17. Section 328 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 328   Cited 10 times   10 Legal Analyses

    (a) FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.-If a post-grant review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 326(d). (b) CERTIFICATE.-If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director shall issue

  18. Section 42.23 - Oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

    37 C.F.R. § 42.23   Cited 39 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Taking testimony

  19. Section 42.301 - Definitions

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

  20. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 17 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  21. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 15 times   38 Legal Analyses

    (a)Relief. Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion. (b)Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding. (c)Burden of proof. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. (d)Briefing. The Board may order briefing on any issue involved in the trial. 37 C.F

  22. 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

  23. Section 42.304 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.304   3 Legal Analyses

    In addition to any other notices required by subparts A and C of this part, a petition must request judgment against one or more claims of a patent identified by patent number. In addition to the requirements of §§ 42.6 , 42.8 , 42.22 , and 42.24 the petition must set forth: (a)Grounds for standing. The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302 . (b)Identification