§

VirnetX Inc.

IPR2015-01047 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2020)
VirnetX Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,574 times   189 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. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 278 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

  3. Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

    767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 315 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the entire market value rule applies if the patentee establishes that its "patented technology drove demand for the entire product."

  4. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

    829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 250 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a nexus can be presumed when the asserted objective indicia is tied to a specific product and the product is the invention claimed in the patent

  5. Brown Williamson Tobacco v. Philip Morris

    229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding commercial success attributed to feature not present in the invention

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

    941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 59 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the USPTO is not required to reopen the record or permit new briefing

  7. In re Huang

    100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 94 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the inventor's opinion as to the purchaser's reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus

  8. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.

    929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 7 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Concluding Article III requirements were satisfied where patent validity affected the size of royalty payments to plaintiff

  9. Virnetx Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.

    No. 2017-1368 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 8, 2019)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2017-1368 2017-1383 07-08-2019 VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC., Appellees VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC., BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC, Appellees NAVEEN MODI, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, JOSEPH PALYS, IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, MICHAEL WOLFE, DANIEL ZEILBERGER. MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued

  10. Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Sys.

    2019-1043 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 21, 2020)

    2019-1043 01-21-2020 VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS, IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, MICHAEL WOLFE, DANIEL ZEILBERGER. ANDREW S. EHMKE, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by DAVID L. MCCOMBS, THEODORE M. FOSTER, DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS. PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent

  11. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 554 times   900 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  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 144 - Decision on appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 144   Cited 84 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Stating that this court's mandate shall govern further proceedings before the Office

  14. 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"

  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 42.6 - Filing of documents, including exhibits; service

    37 C.F.R. § 42.6   Cited 9 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)General format requirements. (1) Page size must be 81/2 inch * 11 inch except in the case of exhibits that require a larger size in order to preserve details of the original. (2) In documents, including affidavits, created for the proceeding: (i) Markings must be in black or must otherwise provide an equivalent dark, high-contrast image; (ii) 14-point, Times New Roman proportional font, with normal spacing, must be used; (iii) Double spacing must be used except in claim charts, headings, tables

  17. 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,