§

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

09781636 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)
Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

55 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 27,446 times   244 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,569 times   187 Legal Analyses
    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"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,187 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 749 times   5 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

  5. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

    418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 466 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding actual use dispositive, regardless of the type of transfer

  6. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 283 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"

  7. Superguide Corp. v. Directv Enterprises

    358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 308 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party "waived its right to assert a construction other than 'matches or equals' for the term 'meet'" because it agreed to that construction in its briefs

  8. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  9. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.

    550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 184 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court abused its discretion in permitting a witness not qualified as an expert in the pertinent art to testify as an expert regarding issues of noninfringement or invalidity

  10. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 28,047 times   292 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,791 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  13. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 14,124 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" and "the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

  14. Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 402   Cited 7,092 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Stating that relevant evidence is generally admissible at trial

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,165 times   492 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."

  16. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  17. Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 701   Cited 6,001 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Limiting lay testimony to "one that is rationally based on the witness's perception" (cleaned up)

  18. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 5,002 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

  19. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 552 times   898 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  20. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 298 times   313 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  21. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 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"

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

    37 C.F.R. § 42.23   Cited 43 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Taking testimony

  23. Section 42.51 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 42.51   Cited 35 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing additional discovery when it is "in the interests of justice"

  24. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  25. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 16 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

  26. Section 42.5 - Conduct of the proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 42.5   Cited 13 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Board may determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation not specifically covered by this part and may enter non-final orders to administer the proceeding. (b) The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension. (c)Times. (1)Setting times. The Board may set times by order. Times set by rule are default and may be modified by order. Any modification of times will take any applicable statutory pendency

  27. Section 42.2 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.2   Cited 7 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Defining "party" as "at least the petitioner and the patent owner"

  28. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 6 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"

  29. Section 42.62 - Applicability of the Federal rules of evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 42.62   Cited 5 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a)Generally. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to a proceeding. (b)Exclusions. Those portions of the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to criminal proceedings, juries, and other matters not relevant to proceedings under this subpart shall not apply. (c)Modifications in terminology. Unless otherwise clear from context, the following terms of the Federal Rules of Evidence shall be construed as indicated: Appellate court means United States Court

  30. Section 178.1005 - Hydrogen peroxide solution

    21 C.F.R. § 178.1005   Cited 4 times

    Hydrogen peroxide solution identified in this section may be safely used to sterilize polymeric food-contact surfaces identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. (a)Identity. For the purpose of this section, hydrogen peroxide solution is an aqueous solution containing not more than 35 percent hydrogen peroxide (CAS Reg. No. 7722-84-1) by weight, meeting the specifications prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. (b)Optional adjuvant substances. Hydrogen peroxide solution identified in paragraph