PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, December 30, 2013

petering, bristol-myers, monolithic, rambus

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below, to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Archambault et al 11250057 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC GIROUX, GEORGE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Edgington et al 11262482 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP GODBOLD, DOUGLAS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Maciejewski 11903150 - (D) CAPP 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D

In a proper case, the disclosure of a genus may anticipate a species within that genus even if the species is not recited. See In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682 (CCPA 1962); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Petering, In re, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962) 2131.022131.032144.08

bristol-myers HARMON 3: 4, 23, 44, 53, 59, 71, 89; 6: 339
DONNER 1: 415; 7: 748, 911; 8: 789; 10: 891

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 2818 KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIDENSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1193 6,940,751 10/765,802 6,777,757 10/133,704 6,856,540 10/448,505 O’MALLEY Concurring RADER 285 attorney's fees Durie Tangri, LLP; Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP original PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General AUDUONG, GENE NGHIA; HO, TU TU V

And, we recently reiterated that “‘[l]itigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior may suffice, by themselves, to make a case exceptional under § 285.’” Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 726 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

rambus HARMON 6: 162; 14: 278; 17: 184
DONNER 3: 535

No comments :