§

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland

IPR2019-00979 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2020)
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland

51 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. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 261 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  5. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

    669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,082 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

  6. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 637 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  7. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 975 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  8. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 749 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  9. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 538 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

  10. Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.)

    676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 312 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,906 times   287 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 23,557 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  13. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,734 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  14. Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 402   Cited 7,044 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Stating that relevant evidence is generally admissible at trial

  15. 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."

  16. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,368 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  17. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,979 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

  18. Rule 705 - Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert's Opinion

    Fed. R. Evid. 705   Cited 574 times
    Permitting experts to "testify in terms of an opinion or inference" without first laying the factual foundation for such opinion or inference

  19. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 377 times   633 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  20. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 295 times   313 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  21. 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"

  22. Section 42.1 - Policy

    37 C.F.R. § 42.1   Cited 21 times   29 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. Part 42 governs proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sections 1.4 , 1.7 , 1.14 , 1.16 , 1.22 , 1.23 , 1.25 , 1.26 , 1.32 , 1.34 , and 1.36 of this chapter also apply to proceedings before the Board, as do other sections of part 1 of this chapter that are incorporated by reference into this part. (b)Construction. This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. (c)Decorum. Every party must act with courtesy and decorum

  23. 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

  24. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  25. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 6 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"

  26. 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,