§

Sucxess LLC

IPR2020-00268 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2021)
Sucxess LLC

21 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,577 times   189 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,891 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Holding Texas Digital approach "improperly restricts the role of the specification in claim construction"

  3. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 91 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  4. In re Applied Materials, Inc.

    692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 66 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the board correctly rejected claims as obvious where "there was no indication that obtaining the claimed dimensions was beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any unexpectedly beneficial properties"

  5. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.

    815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 39 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No. 2015–1072. 03-01-2016 HARMONIC INC., Appellant v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. Boris Feldman, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by James C. Yoon; Michael T. Rosato, Seattle, WA; Robin L. Brewer, San Francisco, CA; Gideon A. Schor, New York, NY; Richard Torczon, Washington, DC. Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David B. Cochran, Joseph M. Sauer, Cleveland, OH; Matthew Johnson

  6. MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

    812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 21 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the PTAB's conclusion of obviousness that was based, in part, upon an expert's statement that "it would have been obvious ... to incorporate" a prior art reference's capabilities into another prior art reference

  7. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.

    868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 13 times   9 Legal Analyses

    2016-2321 08-22-2017 NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellant v. ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Broad Ocean Motor LLC, Broad Ocean Technologies LLC, Appellees Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor Scott R. Brown, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew B. Walters ; Christopher Michael Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas

  8. Uber Techs. v. X One, Inc.

    957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2019-1164 05-05-2020 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. X ONE, INC., Appellee Christopher Dryer, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Lauren Ann Degnan, Michael John Ballanco, Walter Karl Renner. Doris Johnson Hines, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Jeffrey Curtiss Totten ; Kevin D. Rodkey, Atlanta, GA; Jacob Adam Schroeder, Palo Alto, CA. Prost, Chief Judge. Christopher Dryer

  9. Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int'l A/S

    No. 2018-1810 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2019)

    2018-1810 2018-1811 2018-1891 10-15-2019 KNAUF INSULATION, INC., KNAUF INSULATION SPRL, Appellants v. ROCKWOOL INTERNATIONAL A/S, Cross-Appellant JOSHUA PAUL LARSEN, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellants. DAVID CLAY HOLLOWAY, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by COURTNEY DABBIERE, DEAN W. RUSSELL, TIFFANY L. WILLIAMS. LINN, Circuit Judge NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeals from the United States Patent

  10. Application of McLaughlin

    443 F.2d 1392 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8474. June 24, 1971. Norman Lettvin, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R.V. Lupo, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. McLaughlin has appealed from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 13, 14 and 15 in his application as unpatentable

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,973 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 381 times   636 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  15. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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"

  16. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 164 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  17. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 131 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  18. 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"

  19. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 28 times   55 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"

  20. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  21. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   3 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,