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

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

Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

Holding that claim terms should be given plain and ordinary meaning unless patentee acts as own lexicographer or disavows claim scope in specification or prosecution history

Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

Holding that the parties' dispute over whether a license fee that covered both "patents and software services" was properly attributed to the asserted patents was a "factual issue best addressed by cross examination and not by exclusion"

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc.

Holding that where patentee fails to indicate any intent to define a term, it is proper for the court to find "[t]here is no lexicography or disavowal"

Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp.

Holding claims describing the extraction of machine code instructions from something that did not have machine code instructions indefinite as "nonsensical in the way a claim to extracting orange juice from apples would be"

Technology v. Videotek

Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry

MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.

Holding that where the patentee provided a specific meaning for a term in the specification and the prosecution history, that term, which appeared in the claim preamble, was limited to the meaning given it by the patentee

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 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

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

Section 318 - Decision of the Board

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

Section 312 - Petitions

Governing inter partes reexamination

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 42.1 - Policy

Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

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