§

Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP

IPR2019-01335 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)
Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP

22 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.

    299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,457 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

  3. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 508 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  4. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.

    805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 76 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Ariosa, this court upheld the Board's rejection of a reply that relied on previously unidentified portions of a prior art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention, because the cited portions of prior art were not identified or discussed in the petition or accompanying declarations.

  5. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 59 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the USPTO is not required to reopen the record or permit new briefing

  6. United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

    141 S. Ct. 549 (2020)   Cited 1 times

    No. 19-1434. 10-13-2020 UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. ARTHREX, INC., et al. Petition for writ of certiorari in No. 19-1434 granted as to Federal Circuit case No. 2018-2140, and petition for writ of certiorari in Nos. 19-1452 and 19-1458 granted, all limited to Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States. The cases is consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

  7. Celgene Corp. v. Peter

    931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 27 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board "was correct to not allow the extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, to trump the persuasive intrinsic evidence" (cleaned up)

  8. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  9. In re Epstein

    32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 47 times
    Finding “no clear error” in the Board's fact finding that writings dated after the filing date demonstrated the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention

  10. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu

    2018-1154 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2019)   Cited 15 times
    Affirming the Board's obviousness finding based on a single reference where the petitioner's primary argument was that all of the elements were disclosed in a single reference, and the petitioner also argued, in the alternative, that some of the elements were disclosed by a second reference

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,973 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  15. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 162 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  16. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 131 times   122 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 42.8 - 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"

  19. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,