§

Symantec Corporation v. the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York

12154405 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)
Symantec Corporation v. the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York

12 Cited authorities

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

    811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 251 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"

  2. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 278 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  3. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment

    527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 220 times
    Finding dictionary definitions supported district court's claim construction

  4. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 149 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  5. In re Antor Media Corp.

    689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1465. Reexamination Nos. 90/007,839 90/007,936 90/007,942 90/007,957 90/009,261. 2012-07-27 In re ANTOR MEDIA CORPORATION. Thomas A. Lewry, Brooks Kushman, P.C., of Southfield, Michigan, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Cunningham. William Lamarca, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitor. LOURIE

  6. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y. v. Symantec Corp.

    Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-808 (E.D. Va. Apr. 1, 2014)

    Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-808 04-01-2014 TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Defendant. James R. Spencer MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Motion to Transfer Case to the Central District of California ("Motion to Transfer") (ECF No. 21) and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ("Motion to Dismiss") (ECF No. 18) filed by Defendant Symantec Corporation ("Symantec"). Plaintiff Trustees of Columbia University in

  7. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 22,536 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,938 times   949 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 159 times   137 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  10. Section 42.23 - Oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

    37 C.F.R. § 42.23   Cited 39 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Taking testimony

  11. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 17 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  12. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 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,