KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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"

Phillips v. AWH Corp.

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"

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

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

Vivid Technologies v. American Science

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

WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

Pfizer v. Apotex

Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

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

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

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

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."

Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Section 1 - Establishment

Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 318 - Decision of the Board

Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

Section 90.2 - Notice; service