§

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

12640425 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)
TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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. Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc.

    690 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding expert opinion on obviousness was admissible and noting that the expert adequately defined what a prior art patent would teach a person skilled in the art

  3. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.

    840 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 80 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to award fees based on lack of documentation when counsel failed to keep contemporaneous time records, but furnished affidavits and corroborative business records

  4. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.

    127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 57 times
    Concluding that courts should evaluate the question of objective baselessness "in light of ... information [available] at the time of filing"

  5. In re Lackey

    371 F. App'x 80 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

    No. 2009-1532. April 9, 2010. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Serial No. 10/908,004. Gregory T. Zalecki, Law Offices of Gregory T. Zalecki, of Sterling Heights, MI, for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Benjamin D.M. Wood and Thomas L. Stoll, Associate

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 times   460 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 21 times   40 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

  8. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 5 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"