§

Oracle Corporation v. Thought, Inc.

10624753 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2015)
Oracle Corporation v. Thought, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

    256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 674 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

  2. Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert

    512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 304 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”

  3. Cohesive Tech. v. Waters Corp.

    543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 159 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding anticipation and obviousness are distinct inquiries

  4. 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

  5. In re Omeprazole Patent

    483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 87 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an "inequitable conduct claim was not technically moot, because it would have rendered the entire . . . patent unenforceable, rather than just the claims that were held invalid"

  6. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  7. Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

    713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding journal citations referencing efficacy studies not sufficient to show industry praise

  8. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  9. In re Suitco Surface

    603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 36 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Suitco, we disagreed with the Board's broadest reasonable construction of the term "finishing the top surface of the floor," because the Board's construction "allow[ed] the finishing material to fall anywhere above the surface being finished regardless of whether it actually ‘finishes’ the surface."

  10. Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos

    705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1434. 2013-01-23 REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC, Appellant, v. David J. KAPPOS, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Appellee, and Habasit Belting, Inc., Appellee. David R. Cross, Quarles & Brady, LLP, of Milwaukee, WI, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Johanna Wilbert. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and William LaMarca, Associate Solicitor. NEWMAN

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 410 times   205 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  15. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 162 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  16. 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"

  17. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  18. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   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,