§

Seagate Technology (Us) Holdings, Inc. v. Enova Technology Corp.

09704769 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2015)
Seagate Technology (Us) Holdings, Inc. v. Enova Technology Corp.

36 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. 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

  3. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 349 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"

  4. Midwest Industries, v. Karavan Trailers

    175 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 279 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding en banc that Federal Circuit law governs question of whether patent law conflicts with trade dress action under § 43 of the Lanham Act or preempts such an action under state law

  5. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

    463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 205 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

  6. Tokai Corp v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.

    632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that regional circuit law governs the decision to exclude evidence

  7. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  8. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  9. Ecolochem v. Southern California Edison

    227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 147 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prior-art reference did not anticipate claims 1, 4, and 7-12, but that it did anticipate claim 20

  10. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 28,162 times   296 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  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. 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"

  14. 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)

  15. 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"

  16. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  17. 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

  18. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   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,

  19. Section 42.54 - Protective order

    37 C.F.R. § 42.54   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) A party may file a motion to seal where the motion to seal contains a proposed protective order, such as the default protective order set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The motion must include a certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute. The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information, including, but