§

ZOLL LIFECOR CORPORATION v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORP. and KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.

8946843 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)
ZOLL LIFECOR CORPORATION v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORP. and KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

    467 U.S. 752 (1984)   Cited 1,467 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"

  2. Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp.

    27 F.3d 751 (1st Cir. 1994)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that for claim preclusion to apply, a litigant first must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claim

  3. Dalton v. Honda Motor Co.

    425 F. App'x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    No. 2011-1077. June 13, 2011. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. (Opposition No. 91173105). Michael Dalton, Cincinnati, Ohio, pro se. Dyan Finguerra-Ducharme, White Case, LLP, of New York, NY, for appellee. Before PROST, MOORE and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Michael Dalton ("Dalton") appeals from the final decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") sustaining Honda Motor Co., Ltd.'s opposition and refusing Dalton's

  4. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 550 times   896 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  5. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 377 times   633 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  6. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 128 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  7. Section 21 - Filing date and day for taking action

    35 U.S.C. § 21   Cited 17 times   20 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any paper or fee required to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office will be considered filed in the Office on the date on which it was deposited with the United States Postal Service or would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or emergencies designated by the Director. (b) When the day, or the last day, for taking any action or paying any fee in the United States Patent and Trademark Office

  8. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 46 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  9. 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"

  10. Section 42.101 - Who may petition for inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.101   Cited 7 times   10 Legal Analyses

    A person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent unless: (a) Before the date on which the petition for review is filed, the petitioner or real party-in-interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent; (b) The petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner is served