Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

OMEGA PATENTS, L.L.C. (PATENT OWNER) et al.

90014121 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2020)
OMEGA PATENTS, L.L.C. (PATENT OWNER) et al.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. In re Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 526 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  3. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 667 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  4. 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))

  5. Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp.

    920 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an accused infringer was entitled to JMOL of no direct infringement where the patentee "[did] not provide all the required claim elements" because a third party provided the cell tower which enabled all of the limitations of the systems claim to be met

  6. In re Recreative Technologies Corp.

    83 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 18 times

    95-1337 (Reexamination No. 90/002,613) DECIDED May 13, 1996 Timothy J. Martin, Timothy J. Martin, P.C., of Lakewood, Colorado, argued for appellant. James T. Carmichael, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor and Murriel E. Crawford, Associate Solicitor, Office of Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, were on the brief for appellee. James A. Lowe and Sandeep Seth, of Denver, Colorado, were on the brief for Amicus

  7. In re Wertheim

    646 F.2d 527 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that entitlement to an "earlier U.S. filing date for the patent necessarily depends on further compliance with §§ 120 and 112"

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,423 times   1070 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  9. 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"

  10. Section 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 305   Cited 176 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  12. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  13. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  14. Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.550   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings