§

Universal Electronics, Inc.

IPR2019-01615 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2021)
Universal Electronics, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,568 times   187 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. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,879 times   167 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"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,187 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,394 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

  5. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 749 times   5 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

  6. Technology v. Videotek

    545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 250 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry

  7. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 160 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no motivation to combine where "doctors were not using the disclosed devices and methods to heal wounds with negative pressure because they did not believe that these devices were capable of such healing"

  8. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 149 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  9. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

    829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 61 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory statements that "[t]he same analysis" applied to different prior art did not provide sufficient evidence to base its legal conclusion of obviousness

  10. Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

    811 F.3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the "intrinsic record is therefore clear that the asserted claims cover only structure that randomizes data symbols in parallel before combining them" because "[e]very embodiment discussed in the specification randomizes the data symbols before combining them" and "[n]o disclosure in the specification depicts or discusses the possibility of combining before randomizing"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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 6,023 times   1024 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 3,965 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 1 - Establishment

    35 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 518 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

  15. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 298 times   313 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  16. 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"

  17. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  18. Section 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   251 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

  19. 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"

  20. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   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,