§

Prisua Engineering Corp.

IPR2017-01188 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2021)
Prisua Engineering Corp.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 59 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the USPTO is not required to reopen the record or permit new briefing

  2. Samsung Elecs. Am. v. Prisua Eng'g Corp.

    948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 49 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTAB may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in IPR because, "although indefiniteness analysis involves general claim construction principles . . . it does not follow that the Board may exceed its statutorily limited authority simply because an indefiniteness issue arises during claim construction. Instead . . . Congress viewed a challenge based on indefiniteness to be distinct from a challenged based on sections 102 and 103."

  3. United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

    141 S. Ct. 549 (2020)   Cited 1 times

    No. 19-1434. 10-13-2020 UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. ARTHREX, INC., et al. Petition for writ of certiorari in No. 19-1434 granted as to Federal Circuit case No. 2018-2140, and petition for writ of certiorari in Nos. 19-1452 and 19-1458 granted, all limited to Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States. The cases is consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

  4. Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC

    137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017)   Cited 2 times   13 Legal Analyses

    No. 16–712. 06-12-2017 OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, petitioner, v. GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.

  5. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.

    393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 53 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding examiner demand, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105, for “information that the applicant is in the best position to most cheaply provide”

  6. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP

    812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 26 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "as a matter of inherent authority and general rulemaking authority, the Director ha authority to delegate the institution decision to the Board"

  7. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas

    362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 11 times   9 Legal Analyses

    No. 03-1339. DECIDED: March 24, 2004. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 246 F.Supp.2d 460, Leonie M. Brinkema, J. Christopher N. Sipes, Covington Burling, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Raymond T. Chen, Associate

  8. 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)

  9. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A