§

TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.

13470860 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2014)
TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.

23 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,559 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

    694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 330 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the parties' dispute over whether a license fee that covered both "patents and software services" was properly attributed to the asserted patents was a "factual issue best addressed by cross examination and not by exclusion"

  3. B. Braun Medical v. Abbott Laboratories

    124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 511 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's pre- Markman failure to instruct the jury on the construction of a means-plus-function limitation was harmless because the jury adopted the correct construction

  4. Wenger Mfg. v. Coating Machinery Systems

    239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 212 times
    Holding that claim limitation using the term "means for" and not reciting any structure presumptively falls within the scope of § 112, ¶ 6

  5. Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude Medical

    296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 187 times
    Holding that it is improper to limit a function beyond what is stated in the claim

  6. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  7. Inventio v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Amercs

    649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 105 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding "modernizing device" denoted sufficient structure based on surrounding claim language

  8. Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.

    550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that means plus function claims are interpreted with reference to, and as limited by, the related structure disclosed in the patent for performing the function recited in the claim, or the equivalents thereof

  9. Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.

    655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 89 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to find a claim obvious when the when prior art does not provide "indication of which parameters were critical" or "direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful"

  10. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,394 times   1049 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 6,148 times   482 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 550 times   896 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 377 times   633 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  16. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 128 times   121 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  17. 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"

  18. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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

  19. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 28 times   54 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"

  20. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  21. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 6 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"