§

Qualcomm Incorporated

IPR2019-00048 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2020)
Qualcomm Incorporated

19 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,563 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 5,869 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 3,185 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 278 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

  5. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,256 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  6. V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA

    401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 154 times
    Affirming as proper district court's simultaneous claim construction and grant of summary judgment

  7. InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGo Communications, Inc.

    751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 106 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert's testimony could not support a finding of obviousness where "testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to [the expert's] belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so"

  8. Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.

    952 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 78 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining how we first, and primarily, rely on intrinsic evidence like claim language when construing claim terms

  9. Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Ltd.

    216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is well-settled that an expert's unsupported conclusion on the ultimate issue of infringement is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

  10. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. the Toro Co.

    848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the obviousness argument of a party seeking to avoid a preliminary injunction where the party did not provide any evidence as to a motivation to combine prior art references

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,154 times   485 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 187 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"

  13. 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)

  14. 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"

  15. 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,