§

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

09404920 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

16 Cited authorities

  1. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 965 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  2. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University

    212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 372 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”

  3. 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"

  4. Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.

    247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 333 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory statements offered by experts are not evidence

  5. B. B. Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp

    249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 148 times
    Holding district court did not err by declining to construe the term "melting" as it did "not appear to have required construction, or to depart from its ordinary meaning"

  6. Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Medical Device Alliance, Inc.

    244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 125 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court did not err by declining to construe the terms "irrigating" and "frictional heat" and "relying on the ordinary meanings of these terms"

  7. Harari v. Lee

    656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 45 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."

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   447 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,937 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 397 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  11. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   625 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  12. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 127 times   116 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  13. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 43 times   246 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner

  14. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  15. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 27 times   51 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"

  16. Section 42.22 - Content of petitions and motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.22   Cited 14 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a) Each petition or motion must be filed as a separate paper and must include: (1) A statement of the precise relief requested; and (2) A full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent. (b)Relief requested. Where a rule in part 1 of this title ordinarily governs the relief sought, the petition or motion must make any showings required under that rule