§

Toyota Motor Corporation v. Cellport Systems, Inc.

08586602 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)
Toyota Motor Corporation v. Cellport Systems, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,724 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,157 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 614 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  4. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 730 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  5. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 515 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  6. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.

    357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 364 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents

  7. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.

    318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 315 times
    Holding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims

  8. York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center

    99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 312 times
    Holding that the claim language "means formed on the . . . sidewall portions including a plurality of spaced apart . . . members protruding from the . . . sidewall portions and forming load lock . . ." did not invoke § 112, ¶ 6: "The claim language does not link the term means to a function . . . Instead, the claim recites structure. . . . Without a `means' sufficiently connected to a recited function, the presumption in use of the word `means' does not operate."

  9. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  10. Fresenius USA v. Baxter International

    582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 82 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party cannot preserve an argument if it presents "only a skeletal or undeveloped argument to the trial court"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,283 times   1028 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   453 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."

  13. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 538 times   883 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  14. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   626 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  15. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 43 times   247 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

  16. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 188 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"

  17. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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

  18. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 27 times   53 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"

  19. Section 42.1 - Policy

    37 C.F.R. § 42.1   Cited 21 times   29 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. Part 42 governs proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sections 1.4 , 1.7 , 1.14 , 1.16 , 1.22 , 1.23 , 1.25 , 1.26 , 1.32 , 1.34 , and 1.36 of this chapter also apply to proceedings before the Board, as do other sections of part 1 of this chapter that are incorporated by reference into this part. (b)Construction. This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. (c)Decorum. Every party must act with courtesy and decorum

  20. Section 42.5 - Conduct of the proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 42.5   Cited 11 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Board may determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation not specifically covered by this part and may enter non-final orders to administer the proceeding. (b) The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension. (c)Times. (1)Setting times. The Board may set times by order. Times set by rule are default and may be modified by order. Any modification of times will take any applicable statutory pendency

  21. Section 42.122 - Multiple proceedings and Joinder

    37 C.F.R. § 42.122   Cited 5 times   22 Legal Analyses

    (a)Multiple proceedings. Where another matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Board may during the pendency of the inter partes review enter any appropriate order regarding the additional matter including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter. (b)Request for joinder. Joinder may be requested by a patent owner or petitioner. Any request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22 , no later than one month after the institution date