§

SAP America v. Lakshmi Arunachalam Arunachalam

11980185 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2014)
SAP America v. Lakshmi Arunachalam Arunachalam

18 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,485 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,453 times   522 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

  3. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,422 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  4. Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co.

    241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)   Cited 204 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "official publications posted on government agency websites should be admitted into evidence easily" based on Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 902

  5. SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 178 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]bsent the voluntary joinder of all co-owners of a patent, a co-owner acting alone" lacks standing to sue for patent infringement

  6. United Carbon Co. v. Binney Co.

    317 U.S. 228 (1942)   Cited 238 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding indefinite patent claims that recited, for example, "sustantially pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"

  7. Morton Intern., Inc. v. Cardinal Chemical Co.

    5 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims indefinite because one skilled in the art could not determine whether a given compound was within the scope of the claims

  8. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde

    242 U.S. 261 (1916)   Cited 158 times   18 Legal Analyses
    In Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 [ 37 S.Ct. 82, 61 L.Ed. 286] (1916), the Court stated that an applicant need only make reasonable disclosure, but there there was good reason why he did not do better.

  9. Neev v. Abbott Med. Optics, Inc.

    Civil No. 09-146 (RBK) (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting construction that would make practicing patent claim impossible

  10. Abbott Laboratories v. Diamedix Corp.

    969 F. Supp. 1064 (N.D. Ill. 1997)   Cited 7 times
    In Abbott Laboratories the court denied summary judgment in an action to invalidate two patents because it found genuine issues of material fact existed as to the issue of enablement.

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1068 Legal Analyses
    Requiring 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

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  13. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,402 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  14. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,545 times   2301 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."

  15. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 162 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  16. Section 42.301 - Definitions

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

  17. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  18. 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,