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.
§

Primera Technology, Inc. v. Accuplace

12147407 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2014)
Primera Technology, Inc. v. Accuplace

35 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,571 times   188 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. 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

  3. In re TMI Litigation

    193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 788 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a District Court properly excluded expert testimony where the sole basis for the testimony was summaries prepared by a party's attorney

  4. Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd.

    326 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 659 times
    Holding that failure to account for allegedly relevant data in generating opinion was a matter of weight, not admissibility

  5. Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico

    161 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 488 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a trial court excluded evidence on a mistaken basis, "[t]he choice of remedies (including whether to require a new trial or merely remand for further findings) [was] ours," and remanding for a new trial even though further findings might have justified excluding the proffered evidence on other grounds

  6. Micro Chemical v. Great Plains Chemical

    194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 406 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court erroneously overlooked alternative embodiments of the invention when it concluded that the means-plus function clause could only cover the structure of the preferred embodiment

  7. Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.

    198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 298 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a means-plus-function limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art

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

    550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 185 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

  9. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.

    449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 193 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a challenge as to parameters of test model goes to weight of the evidence

  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 28,078 times   293 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,167 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."

  13. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 410 times   204 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  14. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 298 times   314 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  15. 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"

  16. 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)

  17. 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"

  18. Section 42.1 - Policy

    37 C.F.R. § 42.1   Cited 21 times   29 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. Part 42 governs proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sections 1.4 , 1.7 , 1.14 , 1.16 , 1.22 , 1.23 , 1.25 , 1.26 , 1.32 , 1.34 , and 1.36 of this chapter also apply to proceedings before the Board, as do other sections of part 1 of this chapter that are incorporated by reference into this part. (b)Construction. This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. (c)Decorum. Every party must act with courtesy and decorum

  19. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  20. 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

  21. Section 42.64 - Objection; motion to exclude

    37 C.F.R. § 42.64   Cited 4 times   24 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition evidence. An objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition, unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other evidence. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection to evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be filed within ten business days of the institution of the trial. Once a trial

  22. Section 42.63 - Form of evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 42.63   Cited 2 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a)Exhibits required. Evidence consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit. (b)Translation required. When a party relies on a document or is required to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation must be filed with the document. (c)Exhibit numbering. Each party's exhibits must be uniquely numbered sequentially

  23. 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,