§

Velos Media, LLC

IPR2019-00707 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2020)
Velos Media, LLC

16 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,419 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. 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]”

  3. Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal

    872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 82 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Addressing whether the language of § 316(e), which all conceded applied to challenged claims, "applies equally to proposed substitute claims"

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

    941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 58 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the USPTO is not required to reopen the record or permit new briefing

  5. In re Packard

    751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 37 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Addressing the issues separately

  6. Bosch Auto. Serv. Solutions, LLC v. Matal

    878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 17 times   5 Legal Analyses

    2015-1928 12-22-2017 BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Appellant v. Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor Timothy M. Mccarthy, Clark Hill, PLC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by David J. Marr. Frances Lynch, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Thomas

  7. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG

    955 F.3d 45 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 12 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "the Board should not be constrained to arguments and theories raised by the petitioner in its petition or opposition to the motion to amend"

  8. Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols., LLC v. Iancu

    2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2018)

    2015-1928 03-15-2018 BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Appellant v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor PER CURIAM. NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-00183. ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States Patent

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,968 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  11. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 298 times   314 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  12. 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)

  13. 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"

  14. Section 41.121 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.121   Cited 15 times   77 Legal Analyses

    (a)Types of motions - (1)Substantive motions. Consistent with the notice of requested relief, if any, and to the extent the Board authorizes, a party may file a motion: (i) To redefine the scope of the contested case, (ii) To change benefit accorded for the contested subject matter, or (iii) For judgment in the contested case. (2)Responsive motions. The Board may authorize a party to file a motion to amend or add a claim, to change inventorship, or otherwise to cure a defect raised in a notice of

  15. 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"

  16. 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,