§

SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.

09253427 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2013)
SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,714 times   164 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"

  2. Arizona v. California

    530 U.S. 392 (2000)   Cited 835 times
    Holding that res judicata did not bar certain claims stemming from reservation boundary disputes

  3. Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation

    402 U.S. 313 (1971)   Cited 2,223 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

  4. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 497 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  5. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

    722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 102 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "it will be rare that a patent infringement suit can be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of patentable subject matter ... because every issued patent is presumed to have been issued properly, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary"

  6. Davignon v. Clemmey

    322 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003)   Cited 100 times
    Holding that an appellate court remains free to bypass problematic jurisdictional issues provided those issues do not implicate Article III case or controversy requirement

  7. In re Yamamoto

    740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 110 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified”

  8. In re Skvorecz

    580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times
    Finding that the phrase "at the separation" "d[id] not require further antecedent basis" because "a person skilled in the field of the invention would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the specification"

  9. Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Von Drehle Corp.

    710 F.3d 527 (4th Cir. 2013)   Cited 39 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may waive its preclusion argument by failing to timely raise it

  10. Municipal Resale Service Customers v. F.E.R.C

    43 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 1995)   Cited 14 times
    Refusing to defer to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's interpretation of one of its regulations

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,480 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,404 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 329 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 329   Cited 10 times   10 Legal Analyses

    A party dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 328(a) may appeal the decision pursuant to sections 141 through 144. Any party to the post-grant review shall have the right to be a party to the appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 329 Added Pub. L. 112-29, §6(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 311. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATESection effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable only to patents

  14. Section 328 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 328   Cited 10 times   10 Legal Analyses

    (a) FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.-If a post-grant review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 326(d). (b) CERTIFICATE.-If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director shall issue

  15. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 21 times   40 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A