550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,517 times 168 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"
Holding that the "overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into 'newly discovered evidence'" for a motion for reconsideration
Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"
Holding that motions for reconsideration may not be used "to repeat old arguments previously considered and rejected, or to raise new legal theories that should have been raised earlier"
Holding that, under federal maritime law, "a court should not look beyond the written language of the contract to determine the intent of the parties unless the disputed language is ambiguous"
Holding that four methods of determining "slope of strain hardening coefficient" leading to different results rendered the claims invalid for indefiniteness
Holding that the defendant committed direct infringement in the instances that it assembled the components itself into the complete patented product, and that it committed indirect infringement when it provided the components to its customers along with directions as to how to assemble them into the patented product