§

Teladoc Health, Inc.

IPR2021-00871 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2022)
Teladoc Health, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,271 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  2. In re Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 518 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  3. OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex Inc.

    939 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 32 times   9 Legal Analyses

    2018-1925 10-04-2019 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Appellant v. APOTEX INC., Apotex Corp., Apotex Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., Apotex Holdings Inc., Appellees United States, Intervenor Thomas Saunders, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Amy K. Wigmore, Amanda L. Major ; Emily R. Whelan, Kevin M. Yurkerwich, Boston, MA. William Blake Coblentz, Cozen O'Connor, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by Barry P. Golob, Aaron

  4. 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”

  5. 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 times   479 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."

  7. 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