§

Universal Remote Control Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc.

08046105 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015)
Universal Remote Control Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc.

35 Cited authorities

  1. Taylor v. Sturgell

    553 U.S. 880 (2008)   Cited 3,272 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,545 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"

  3. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,810 times   165 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"

  4. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,177 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  5. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 971 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  6. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 481 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

  7. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

    463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 203 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

  8. 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

  9. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 140 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  10. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 167 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,121 times   477 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 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    35 U.S.C. § 141   Cited 455 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Imposing no such requirement

  13. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 403 times   189 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  14. 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"

  15. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  16. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 128 times   119 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  17. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  18. Section 90.3 - Time for appeal or civil action

    37 C.F.R. § 90.3   Cited 15 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the applicant’s time to challenge a Board decision in an appeal or civil action starts anew after the Board’s action on rehearing

  19. Section 42.5 - Conduct of the proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 42.5   Cited 13 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Board may determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation not specifically covered by this part and may enter non-final orders to administer the proceeding. (b) The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension. (c)Times. (1)Setting times. The Board may set times by order. Times set by rule are default and may be modified by order. Any modification of times will take any applicable statutory pendency

  20. Section 42.56 - Expungement of confidential information

    37 C.F.R. § 42.56   1 Legal Analyses

    After denial of a petition to institute a trial or after final judgment in a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record. 37 C.F.R. §42.56

  21. 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,