§

Sisvel International S.A.

IPR2021-00815 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2021)
Sisvel International S.A.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,889 times   170 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. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,398 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"

  3. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp.

    811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 266 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims describing the extraction of machine code instructions from something that did not have machine code instructions indefinite as "nonsensical in the way a claim to extracting orange juice from apples would be"

  4. On-Line Tech. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer

    386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 139 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding district court's claim construction erroneously excluded a toroidal shape where "the reference to the preferred embodiment as having mirrors with toroidal surfaces would give rise to a very strong inference that the claim should be construed to include such surfaces"

  5. Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC

    824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ruckus Wireless, 824 F.3d at 1003, the court applied the title, "Communicating Information Packets Via Telephone Lines," to construe the claims as excluding wireless communication.

  6. 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."

  7. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,972 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  8. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 410 times   205 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  9. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 380 times   635 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  10. 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"

  11. Section 42.4 - Notice of trial

    37 C.F.R. § 42.4   Cited 54 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"

  12. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 28 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"