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 Texas Digital approach "improperly restricts the role of the specification in claim construction"

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

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

Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.)

Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

Holding that a nexus can be presumed when the asserted objective indicia is tied to a specific product and the product is the invention claimed in the patent

Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.

Holding that an alleged infringer bears an initial burden of production to identify unmarked patented products

Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.

Holding that the doctrine of claim differentiation yields to an interpretation mandated by § 112, ¶ 6

Dayco Products, Inc. v. Total Containment

Holding that disclosure of the `196 application, filed in 1992, could have led to double patenting rejections in the applications that issued as the patents-in-suit, which all claim a 1989 filing date

In re Gleave

Finding 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”

Section 112 - Specification

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

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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

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 3 - Officers and employees

Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

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 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions