§Why CasetextPricing

Synopsys, Inc. v. Lee et al

Brief in Support to 37 Cross MOTION to Dismiss or Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

52 Cited authorities

  1. Bennett v. Spear

    520 U.S. 154 (1997)   Cited 3,710 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"

  2. United States v. Mead Corp.

    533 U.S. 218 (2001)   Cited 2,602 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"

  3. Auer v. Robbins

    519 U.S. 452 (1997)   Cited 2,342 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal agency's interpretation of a regulation is controlling where it is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"

  4. Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

    529 U.S. 120 (2000)   Cited 1,519 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress had not yet empowered the FDA to regulate tobacco products

  5. National Cable Telecom. Assn. v. Brand X Internet S

    545 U.S. 967 (2005)   Cited 1,179 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency is free within "the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course" only if it "adequately justifies the change"

  6. Russello v. United States

    464 U.S. 16 (1983)   Cited 2,102 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"

  7. Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich

    510 U.S. 200 (1994)   Cited 411 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner's constitutional claims could first be brought before the agency

  8. Clark v. Rameker

    573 U.S. 122 (2014)   Cited 162 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inherited funds from parent's IRA were not "retirement funds" under 11 U.S.C. § 522, in part because they were distributed

  9. Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

    856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 209 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be considered during claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer"

  10. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 120 times   26 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

  11. Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 25   Cited 10,806 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

  12. Section 704 - Actions reviewable

    5 U.S.C. § 704   Cited 4,276 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Granting judicial review over " final agency action"

  13. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 538 times   883 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  14. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 371 times   628 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  15. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 279 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  16. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 160 times   137 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  17. Section 2 - Powers and duties

    35 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 110 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Patent Office to cover the expenses of "persons" other than federal employees attending programs on intellectual-property protection

  18. Section 319 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 319   Cited 77 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Providing for appeal from a "final written decision"

  19. Section 304 - Reexamination order by Director

    35 U.S.C. § 304   Cited 53 times   6 Legal Analyses

    If, in a determination made under the provisions of subsection 303(a), the Director finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of a patent is raised, the determination will include an order for reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. The patent owner will be given a reasonable period, not less than two months from the date a copy of the determination is given or mailed to him, within which he may file a statement on such question, including any

  20. Section 306 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 306   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete

  21. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  22. Section 42.23 - Oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

    37 C.F.R. § 42.23   Cited 39 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Taking testimony

  23. Section 1.510 - Request for ex parte reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.510   Cited 29 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Providing that where ex parte reexamination request does not meet requirements, requester is "generally...given an opportunity to complete the request within a specified time"

  24. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 27 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"

  25. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 17 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  26. Section 42.120 - Patent owner response

    37 C.F.R. § 42.120   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. A patent owner may file a single response to the petition and/or decision on institution. A patent owner response is filed as an opposition and is subject to the page limits provided in § 42.24 . (b)Due date for response. If no time for filing a patent owner response to a petition is provided in a Board order, the default date for filing a patent owner response is three months from the date the inter partes review was instituted. 37 C.F.R. §42.120 77 FR 48727, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended

  27. Section 42.123 - Filing of supplemental information

    37 C.F.R. § 42.123   Cited 8 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the late submission of supplemental information must be in the interests of justice

  28. Section 42.74 - Settlement

    37 C.F.R. § 42.74   Cited 3 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a)Board role. The parties may agree to settle any issue in a proceeding, but the Board is not a party to the settlement and may independently determine any question of jurisdiction, patentability, or Office practice. (b)Agreements in writing. Any agreement or understanding between the parties made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of a proceeding shall be in writing and a true copy shall be filed with the Board before the termination of the trial. (c)Request to keep separate