§

WILLIS ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

IPR2016-01610 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2020)
WILLIS ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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

  3. 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"

  4. FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC

    966 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses

    2019-1393 07-29-2020 FANDUEL, INC., Appellant v. INTERACTIVE GAMES LLC, Appellee Eric Allan Buresh, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Megan Joanna Redmond. James R. Barney, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Scott A. Allen, Joshua Goldberg, Robert Shaffer. Hughes, Circuit Judge. Eric Allan Buresh, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Megan Joanna

  5. 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"

  6. 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)

  7. 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

  8. 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"

  9. 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,