§
SAP SE

14 Cited authorities

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim v. Schering-Plough

    320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 139 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the court "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party . . . disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury was not required to believe"

  2. Tomtom, Inc. v. Adolph

    790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 68 times
    Holding district court "erred in determining that it had to construe the entire preamble if it construed a portion of it" and finding certain language in preamble was not limiting, as not providing an antecedent basis for any claims but rather stating a "purpose or intended use"

  3. Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd.

    890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 21 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the United States Patent Office could adopt a construction that neither party proposed

  4. WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. (In re WesternGeco LLC)

    889 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2016-2099, 2016-2100, 2016-2101, 2016-2332, 2016-2333, 2016-2334 05-07-2018 WESTERNGECO LLC, Appellant v. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION, ION International S.A.R.L., Appellees In re: WesternGeco LLC, Appellant John C. O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by William H. Burgess ; Leslie M. Schmidt, Timothy Gilman, New York, NY; Michael Kiklis, Christopher Ricciuti, Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, Alexandria, VA. Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day

  5. In re Stencel

    828 F.2d 751 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 33 times
    Noting that "such [non-limiting] statements often, although not necessarily, appear in the claim's preamble"

  6. In re Anderson

    662 F. App'x 958 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    2016-1156 2016-1157 10-13-2016 IN RE: LAWRENCE EVERATT ANDERSON, Appellant LAWRENCE EVERATT ANDERSON, Falls Church, VA, pro se. THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by SARAH E. CRAVEN, BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN. PER CURIAM. NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 13/189,505 and 13/214,202. LAWRENCE

  7. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 21,255 times   242 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  8. 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."

  9. Section 551 - Definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 551   Cited 4,948 times   89 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition set out in the APA

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  12. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  13. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  14. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and