§

Universal Electronics, Inc.

IPR2019-01595 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021)
Universal Electronics, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 616 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 354 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee had the burden to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date when it was undisputed that a certain reference was invalidating prior art

  3. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  4. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 305 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  5. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.

    811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 171 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that generic computer components such as an "interface," "network," and "database" fail to satisfy the "inventive concept requirement"

  6. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  7. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.

    737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 77 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding where the claimed value fell within prior art range, burden of production switched to the party opposing the obviousness challenge, while burden of proof remanded with challenger

  8. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.

    848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 67 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the Board provided an inadequate analysis to provide meaningful appellate review

  9. Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L.

    859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 48 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim recites sufficient structure "if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the structures by their function"

  10. 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

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,413 times   1065 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 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

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

  13. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 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

  14. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 6 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"