§

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

10143134 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015)
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

21 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corp.

    289 U.S. 178 (1933)   Cited 244 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the "shop right" rule, an employer, in the absence of an express agreement is granted a nonexclusive right to practice the invention created by the employee, working during the hours of employment and with his employer's materials and appliances

  2. U.S. v. Koch

    625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 2010)   Cited 80 times
    Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant, who had been found guilty of possessing or receiving child pornography, from using or possessing computer or accessing Internet, without prior permission from probation officer, as condition of supervised release for conviction of child pornography possession, where defendant did more than merely possess child pornography, he was sophisticated computer user who already had violated less restrictive condition of release, and restriction was not complete ban

  3. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

    800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 45 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

  4. Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.

    83 F.3d 403 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Applying Florida law

  5. United States v. Snow

    517 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that the defendant’s name written on a piece of tape was not a statement

  6. U.S. v. Bowling

    32 F.3d 326 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that manufacturer’s name stamped on firearm was not "a statement of fact" subject to hearsay rule

  7. City of Cocoa v. Leffler

    803 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 5D01-1141 Opinion filed January 4, 2002 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Kerry I. Evander, Judge. Usher L. Brown and Alfred Truesdell of Brown, Ward, Salzman Weiss, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Patrick F. Roche of Frese, Nash Hansen, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellees. PLEUS, J. This case involves a dispute over the ownership of patent rights between an employer and an employee. The City of Cocoa ("the City") appeals a final judgment after a non jury trial in which the trial

  8. State v. Neal

    152 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1943)   Cited 9 times
    Following Bourne

  9. State Board of Education of Fla., et al., v. Bourne

    150 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1942)   Cited 7 times
    Relying on Peck, Dubilier, Solomons, and Hapgood to identify Florida law on implied contracts to assign inventive rights

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Rule 807 - Residual Exception

    Fed. R. Evid. 807   Cited 1,642 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

  13. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 554 times   901 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  14. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 410 times   205 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  15. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 163 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  17. Section 328 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 328   Cited 11 times   11 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 42.51 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 42.51   Cited 36 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing additional discovery when it is "in the interests of justice"

  19. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  20. Section 42.53 - Taking testimony

    37 C.F.R. § 42.53   Cited 4 times   21 Legal Analyses

    (a)Form. Uncompelled direct testimony must be submitted in the form of an affidavit. All other testimony, including testimony compelled under 35 U.S.C. 24 , must be in the form of a deposition transcript. Parties may agree to video-recorded testimony, but may not submit such testimony without prior authorization of the Board. In addition, the Board may authorize or require live or video-recorded testimony. (b)Time and location. (1) Uncompelled direct testimony may be taken at any time to support

  21. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,