§

Symantec Corporation v. Finjan, Inc.

11370114 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)
Symantec Corporation v. Finjan, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 305 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  2. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    577 U.S. 1098 (2016)   Cited 8 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to review the Board's decision to institute review of certain claims on the basis of prior art not asserted regarding those claims

  3. Zenon Env. v. U.S. Filter

    506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 56 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the language "[f]urther details relating to the construction and deployment of a most preferred skein are found in [prior art patents], the relevant disclosures of each of which are included by reference" "expressly limit[ed] the incorporation to only relevant disclosures of the patents, indicating that the disclosures are not being incorporated in their entirety"

  4. Harari v. Lee

    656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 47 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Baldwin, however, does not set a hard and fast rule that 'a' always means one or more than one. Instead, we read the limitation in light of the claim and specification to discern its meaning."

  5. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., Llc.

    778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 11 times   21 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1301. 2015-02-4 In re CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. Timothy M. Salmon, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, of Basking Ridge, NJ, argued for appellant. Of counsel on the brief was John R. Kasha, Kasha Law LLC, of North Potomac, MD. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. With him on the brief were Scott C. Weidenfeller and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitors. DYK Affirmed. Newman, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion

  6. Application of Hogan

    559 F.2d 595 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 56 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding that claim 15 was only entitled to a 1967 filing date where “the disclosure to support claim 15 appears in the 1953 and the 1967 applications, but not in the 1956 application”

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1068 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  8. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 604 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  9. Section 311 - Inter partes review

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

  10. 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"

  11. 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"

  12. Section 1.78 - [Effective 1/19/2025] Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications

    37 C.F.R. § 1.78   Cited 66 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that an applicant can file a continuation application to adjust claims of the patent

  13. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 46 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  14. Section 1.57 - Incorporation by reference

    37 C.F.R. § 1.57   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Allowing disclosures in a U.S. Patent incorporated by reference to provide § 112 support

  15. Section 1.322 - Certificate of correction of Office mistake

    37 C.F.R. § 1.322   Cited 7 times

    (a) (1) The Director may issue a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 254 to correct a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Office, which mistake is clearly disclosed in the records of the Office: (i) At the request of the patentee or the patentee's assignee; (ii) Acting sua sponte for mistakes that the Office discovers; or (iii) Acting on information about a mistake supplied by a third party. (2) (i) There is no obligation on the Office to act on or respond to a submission