§

Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc.

10177727 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015)
Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Heckler v. Chaney

    470 U.S. 821 (1985)   Cited 2,117 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute did not provide meaningful standards because it did not "speak to the criteria which shall be used by the agency for investigating possible violations of the [statute]"

  2. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,031 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  3. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 554 times   900 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  4. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 410 times   205 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  5. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 380 times   635 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  6. 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"

  7. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   252 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner

  8. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 46 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  9. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 16 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

  10. Section 42.122 - Multiple proceedings and Joinder

    37 C.F.R. § 42.122   Cited 5 times   22 Legal Analyses

    (a)Multiple proceedings. Where another matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Board may during the pendency of the inter partes review enter any appropriate order regarding the additional matter including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter. (b)Request for joinder. Joinder may be requested by a patent owner or petitioner. Any request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22 , no later than one month after the institution date