§
SEB S.A.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,463 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,212 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

  3. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,388 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

  4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 254 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee's failure to show that an accused product meets every claim limitation recited in a properly construed claim results in summary judgment of non-infringement

  5. Trading Tech., v. Espeed, Inc.

    595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 171 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the reference to the system of the present invention strongly suggests that the claimed re-centering command requires a manual input

  6. Interdigital Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission

    690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 73 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that InterDigital satisfies § 337 because a domestic industry may consist “purely of licensing activities.”

  7. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   481 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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

  11. 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

  12. 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