MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. ReaId, Inc.
13 Cited authorities
Vivid Technologies v. American Science
200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 730 times 4 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
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 278 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
In re Paulsen
30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 230 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning
In re Gleave
560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 149 timesFinding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”
In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 120 times 26 Legal AnalysesDetermining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable
Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co.
242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 65 timesFinding that preamble term limited claim because the term was used in the specification as well as in all of the claims
In re Translogic Technology
504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 44 times 2 Legal AnalysesRecognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.
In re Bond
910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 57 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand
Application of Preda
401 F.2d 825 (C.C.P.A. 1968) Cited 5 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 8016. October 24, 1968. Wenderoth, Lind Ponack, A. Ponak, Washington, D.C. (John T. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 7 and 8 of application serial No. 269,707
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,938 times 950 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 314 Cited 370 times 625 Legal AnalysesDirecting our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency
37 C.F.R. § 42.100 Cited 188 times 75 Legal AnalysesProviding that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"
Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108 Cited 45 times 69 Legal AnalysesPermitting partial institution