§

Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.

11497026 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2015)
Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.

20 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,520 times   171 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. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.

    318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 315 times
    Holding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims

  3. Superguide Corp. v. Directv Enterprises

    358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 294 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party "waived its right to assert a construction other than 'matches or equals' for the term 'meet'" because it agreed to that construction in its briefs

  4. Winner Intern. Royalty Corp. v. Wang

    202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that "the admission of live testimony on all matters before the Board in a section 146 action, as in this case, makes a factfinder of the district court and requires a de novo trial"

  5. Mantech Envt'l Corp. v. Hudson Envt'l Ser

    152 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 143 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the sequential nature of the claim steps is apparent from the plain meaning of the claim language and nothing in the written description suggests otherwise"

  6. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  7. In re Nuijten

    500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 62 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Declining to import a tangible medium element into the claims directed to only encoded signals, which were unpatentable under § 101

  8. Loral Fairchild Corporation v. Sony Corp.

    181 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim language itself indicated that the steps had to be performed in their written order because the second step required the alignment of a second structure with a first structure formed by the prior step

  9. Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    612 F. App'x 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 25 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding lack of diligence and denying leave to amend based on a different claim-construction ruling than anticipated when moving party did not move to amend until three months after court's ruling

  10. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., Llc.

    778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 11 times   21 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1301. 2015-02-4 In re CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. Timothy M. Salmon, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, of Basking Ridge, NJ, argued for appellant. Of counsel on the brief was John R. Kasha, Kasha Law LLC, of North Potomac, MD. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. With him on the brief were Scott C. Weidenfeller and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitors. DYK Affirmed. Newman, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,940 times   952 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,409 times   2192 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  13. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 397 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  14. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 277 times   307 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 182 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 159 times   137 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  17. Section 42.121 - Amendment of the patent

    37 C.F.R. § 42.121   Cited 21 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that a “motion to amend claims must include a claim listing”

  18. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 17 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  19. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 15 times   38 Legal Analyses

    (a)Relief. Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion. (b)Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding. (c)Burden of proof. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. (d)Briefing. The Board may order briefing on any issue involved in the trial. 37 C.F

  20. 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,