§

Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P

IPR2020-00728 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020)
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P

14 Cited authorities

  1. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 265 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  2. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 278 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

  3. Scimed Life Sys. v. Adv. Cardiovascular

    242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 869 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that description of "present invention" in specification is limiting on claim

  4. In re Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 522 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  5. Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC

    138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018)   Cited 89 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inter partes review proceedings do not violate a patent owner's constitutional rights because patents are the grant of a public franchise

  6. 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

  7. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.

    393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 53 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding examiner demand, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105, for “information that the applicant is in the best position to most cheaply provide”

  8. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP

    812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 26 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "as a matter of inherent authority and general rulemaking authority, the Director ha authority to delegate the institution decision to the Board"

  9. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas

    362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 11 times   9 Legal Analyses

    No. 03-1339. DECIDED: March 24, 2004. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 246 F.Supp.2d 460, Leonie M. Brinkema, J. Christopher N. Sipes, Covington Burling, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Raymond T. Chen, Associate

  10. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 21,195 times   241 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  11. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 552 times   898 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  12. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 379 times   633 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  13. 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"

  14. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A