§

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,

12943847 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015)
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  2. 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

  3. Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.

    CASE NO. 6:13-cv-447-JRG (E.D. Tex. May. 29, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    CASE NO. 6:13-cv-447-JRG CASE NO. 6:13-cv-448-JRG-KNM CASE NO. 6:14-cv-435-JRG-KNM CASE NO. 6:14-cv-992-JRG-KNM 05-29-2015 SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC. et al., Defendants. SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al., Defendants. SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC. et al., Defendants. SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. et al., Defendants. RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MEMORANDUM

  4. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  5. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   251 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

  6. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  7. 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"

  8. Section 42.301 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.301   Cited 21 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Defining the scope of CBM review

  9. Section 42.24 - Type-volume or page limits for petitions, motions, oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

    37 C.F.R. § 42.24   Cited 7 times   31 Legal Analyses

    (a)Petitions and motions. (1) The following word counts or page limits for petitions and motions apply and include any statement of material facts to be admitted or denied in support of the petition or motion. The word count or page limit does not include a table of contents, a table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8 , a certificate of service or word count, or appendix of exhibits or claim listing. (i) Petition requesting inter partes review: 14,000 words. (ii) Petition requesting post-grant

  10. Section 42.208 - Institution of post-grant review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.208   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. (b) At any time prior to institution of post-grant review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute post-grant review. (c) Post-grant review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented