26 Cited authorities

Nken v. Holder
556 U.S. 418 (2009) Cited 3,404 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"
Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.
424 U.S. 800 (1976) Cited 8,240 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court
Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg
849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 658 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.
721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 167 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that "when a claim is cancelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that claim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are asserted becomes moot"
Procter v. Kraft Foods
549 F.3d 842 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 157 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding the district court erred in granting a stay pending reexamination when the plaintiff had filed a motion for preliminary injunction
Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.
943 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2013) Cited 116 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that simplification or clarification by PTAB review particularly likely "when a party has obtained PTO review of each of the asserted claims in the patents-in-suit
Viskase Corp. v. American Nat. Can Co.
261 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 155 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming a district court's decision declining to stay or reopen proceedings after judgment was entered against the defendant pending ongoing patent reexaminations that the defendant initiated post-trial
Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc.
450 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 114 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that four requests for reexamination that were missing necessary elements suggested movant was taking tactical advantage of opportunities for delay
Cost Bros., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
760 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1985) Cited 110 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding surety was not a party to the arbitration agreement because the performance bond did not incorporate the contract containing the arbitration clause by reference
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.
424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 58 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,276 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,954 times 967 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses
35 U.S.C. § 282 Cited 3,909 times 139 Legal Analyses
Granting a presumption of validity to patents
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,439 times 2225 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
35 U.S.C. § 141 Cited 455 times 90 Legal Analyses
Imposing no such requirement
Section 311 - Inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 311 Cited 400 times 186 Legal Analyses
Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding
Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 314 Cited 371 times 629 Legal Analyses
Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
Section 318 - Decision of the Board
35 U.S.C. § 318 Cited 161 times 137 Legal Analyses
Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

Coho Licensing LLC v. Linkedin Corporation

26 Cited authorities

Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"

Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court

Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

Holding that "when a claim is cancelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that claim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are asserted becomes moot"

Holding the district court erred in granting a stay pending reexamination when the plaintiff had filed a motion for preliminary injunction

Holding that simplification or clarification by PTAB review particularly likely "when a party has obtained PTO review of each of the asserted claims in the patents-in-suit

Affirming a district court's decision declining to stay or reopen proceedings after judgment was entered against the defendant pending ongoing patent reexaminations that the defendant initiated post-trial

Finding that four requests for reexamination that were missing necessary elements suggested movant was taking tactical advantage of opportunities for delay

Finding surety was not a party to the arbitration agreement because the performance bond did not incorporate the contract containing the arbitration clause by reference

Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Imposing no such requirement

Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

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

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