§

VMware, Inc. v. Clouding Corp.

10457670 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2015)
VMware, Inc. v. Clouding Corp.

22 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,577 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. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,891 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Holding Texas Digital approach "improperly restricts the role of the specification in claim construction"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Crystal Semicond. v. Tritech Microelec

    246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 307 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "patentee may obtain lost profit damages for that portion of the infringer's sales for which the patentee can demonstrate 'but for' causation and reasonable royalties for any remaining infringing [sales]"; further holding patentee may also recover for "[r]eduction of [its] prices, and consequent loss of profits, enforced by infringing competition"

  5. Spectrum Intl., Inc. v. Sterilite Corp.

    164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 300 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "explicit arguments made [by the applicant] during prosecution" are significant and that "by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover"

  6. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 124 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Determining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable

  7. Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.

    587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 120 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill [which] do[es] not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”

  8. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 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."

  9. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 91 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  10. Custom Accessories v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus

    807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that upon reissue, the burden of proving invalidity is "made heavier"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 381 times   636 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  13. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 299 times   314 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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 164 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  16. 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"

  17. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  18. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 16 times   38 Legal Analyses

    (a)Relief. Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion. (b)Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding. (c)Burden of proof. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. (d)Briefing. The Board may order briefing on any issue involved in the trial. 37 C.F

  19. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   3 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,