§

Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. v. University of Washington

13069187 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)
Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. v. University of Washington

38 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,568 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"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,879 times   167 Legal Analyses
    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"

  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. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.

    848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 748 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of routine business practice can be used to prove that a reference was accessible

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

    676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 314 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”

  6. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 304 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  7. Amgen v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche

    580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 212 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct "is analogous to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103"

  8. Ortho-McNeil v. Mylan Lab

    520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 182 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patented invention was not obvious where a POSA had no reason to select the exact route among several unpredictable alternatives

  9. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 124 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Determining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable

  10. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

    805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 114 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a declaration appended to a reply brief "fairly respond[ed] only to arguments made in ... [the patent owner]'s response," as required by § 42.23(b), and that the patent owner had "a meaningful opportunity to respond," as required by the APA

  11. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 23,622 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  12. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 14,095 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence is relevant at trial if "it has any tendency to make a fact" that "is of consequence" to the "determin[ation] [of] the action" any "more or less probable"

  13. Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 402   Cited 7,069 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Stating that relevant evidence is generally admissible at trial

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."

  15. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  16. 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"

  17. 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"

  18. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  19. 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"

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

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

  21. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  22. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   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,