Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Gold Charm Limited
13 Cited authorities
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,190 times 68 Legal AnalysesHolding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Allen Engineering v. Bartell Industries
299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 507 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite
Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.
358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 213 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that claim language that required heating "dough to a temperature in the range of about 400° F. to 850° F." meant exactly what the ordinary meaning suggested even though all agreed that heating dough itself — rather than the oven — to that temperature would burn the dough to a crisp and leave it as inedible as a "charcoal briquet"
Ultimax Cement Manufacturing Corp. v. CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.
587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 157 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the district court properly granted summary judgment disposing of plaintiffs’ trade secret claims under California law because plaintiffs could not prove the existence of a trade secret where its trade secret had been "disclosed in a patent," making it "generally known to the public"
In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 124 times 27 Legal AnalysesDetermining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable
Elekta Instrument v. O.U.R. Scientific
214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 155 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the claim language "extending between latitudes 30°-45°" did not include latitudes between 14° and 43° because that would "render[] the reference to 30° superfluous"
Process Control Corp. v. Hydreclaim Corp.
190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 156 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding claims inoperable because they violate the principle of conservation of mass
Application of Steele
305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,419 times 1068 Legal AnalysesRequiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,172 times 492 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 314 Cited 380 times 635 Legal AnalysesDirecting our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency
37 C.F.R. § 42.100 Cited 192 times 75 Legal AnalysesProviding that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"
Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108 Cited 46 times 69 Legal AnalysesPermitting partial institution