KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

Phillips v. AWH Corp.

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"

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.

Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous

Vivid Technologies v. American Science

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

Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.

Finding disavowal of "short seals that do not extend inwardly" where the specification stated that "prior art bags are difficult to secure over trash receptacle lips" and explained that "the use of extended short seals reduces the claimed bag's upper opening, making it easy to fit around a trashcan"

In re GPAC Inc.

In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

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))

Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.

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

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."

Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"