§

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

10386691 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2015)
Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

29 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. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 730 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  3. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 313 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  4. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 286 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

  5. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories

    429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 202 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a witness's conclusory assertion that the evidence demonstrated "conception, diligence and reduction to practice" did not carry a party's burden on summary judgment

  6. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 120 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Determining 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

  7. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  8. Taurus IP, LLC v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

    726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that case was exceptional where losing party filed multiple, repetitive motions and continued to litigate a position they already lost in court

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

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 87 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

  10. Slip Track Systems, Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc.

    304 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "the parties . . . dispute only whether one limitation is part of the interfering subject matter, and determination of this issue is dependent upon issues of law alone, we will resolve this issue on appeal."

  11. Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 402   Cited 6,667 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,056 times   449 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 5,938 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,151 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  15. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 397 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  16. 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"

  17. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 159 times   137 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  18. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 127 times   116 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  19. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 188 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  20. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  21. Section 42.53 - Taking testimony

    37 C.F.R. § 42.53   Cited 3 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

  22. Section 42.64 - Objection; motion to exclude

    37 C.F.R. § 42.64   Cited 2 times   23 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition evidence. An objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition, unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other evidence. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection to evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be filed within ten business days of the institution of the trial. Once a trial

  23. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 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,