Results for obviousness

LG Electronics Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0506

Date: 07.11.2022

A reference that contains an obvious typographical error that would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art such that the person would disregard or correct the error does not disclose the subject matter contained in that error.

view Case Detail Download PDF

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC

Case Number: CLB0465

Date: 12.18.2019

In determining the presumption of nexus for secondary considerations, a patent claim is not coextensive with a product that includes a “critical” unclaimed feature that materially impacts the product’s functionality.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0457

Date: 05.05.2020

If the prior art teaches two predictable choices and a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, then § 103 will bar the patentability of an obvious variation.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire LLC

Case Number: CLB0425

Date: 09.08.2017

Inherency may be used to supply a missing claim limitation when the missing claim limitation is necessarily disclosed by a reference; however, the PTO may require an applicant to prove that subject matter shown to be in a reference does not possess a characteristic relied upon with respect to functional limitations.

view Case Detail Download PDF