Latest News

All News

Executive Interviews

The Reexamination Center Executive Interview: Dr. Nancy J. Linck

The Reexamination Center interviews Nancy J. Linck, Ph.D. on a variety of post-grant challenge options at the PTO, including inter partes and ex partes reexamination and the new options introduced within the America Invents Act signed into law in September 2011.

Learn More

Quick Stat

69%

Percentage of inter partes proceedings that are known to be involved in concurrent litigation.

Learn More

Resources

Law & Legislation

Print

Cases:

  • Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Circ. 2010) (Download PDF)
  • International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. (Fed. Circ. 2009) (Download PDF)
  • Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Download PDF)
  • Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, No. 2008-1130, slip op. at 2-7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2008) (Download PDF)
  • Egyptian Goddess Inc. v. Swisa Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Download PDF)
  • In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Download PDF)
  • In re Swanson, 540 F.3d. 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Download PDF)
  • Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating LTD. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 24, 2008) (Download PDF)
  • In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Download PDF)
  • KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), US Supreme Court (2007) (Download PDF)
  • Shockley v. Arcan, Inc., 248 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Download PDF)
  • Viskase Corp. v. Am. Nat’l Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1328, 59 USPQ2d 1823, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Download PDF)
  • Bloom Eng’g Co. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co., 129 F.3d 1247, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Download PDF)
  • In re Lonardo, 119 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Download PDF)
  • In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Download PDF)
  • In re Recreative Technologies, 83 F.3d 1394, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Download PDF)
  • In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Download PDF)
  • In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Download PDF)
  • Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 952 F.2d 1357, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Download PDF)
  • Tennant Co. v. Hako Minuteman, Inc., 878 F.2d 1413, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Download PDF)
  • Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Download PDF)
  • Fortel Corp. v. Phone-Mate, Inc., 825 F.2d 1577, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Download PDF)
  • Customer Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Download PDF)
  • In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857, 225 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(en banc) (Download PDF)
  • Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating and Packing Inc., 756 F.2d 1574,1579 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Download PDF)
  • Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Download PDF)

Legislation:

  • Senate Bill S515 Post Grant Review (“PGR”) (Download PDF)
  • H.R. Rep. No. 107-120, at 2. Substantial New Question of Patentability (Download PDF)