green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
68.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…during reexamination, the examiner reviews the claims in view of various prior art patents and printed publications.
at p. 1276
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
ThroughPuter, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
whether the examiner actually considered this issue can only be determined by reviewing the prosecution history. the history here fails to support ntp's contention that the examiner made such a considered judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc.
during reexamination, the examiner reviews the claims in view of various prior art patents and printed publications.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc.
during reexamination, the examiner reviews the claims in view of various prior art patents and printed publications.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
ThroughPuter, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
whether the examiner actually considered this issue can only be determined by reviewing the prosecution history. the history here fails to support ntp's contention that the examiner made such a considered judgment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
IN RE SELENIOUS ACID LITIGATION
(Id. at 17 (citing In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Connected Controls, INC. v. DPS Electronics, INC.
DISCUSSION “[F]or a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120 .” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cozy, Inc. v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.
Int’l, Inc., 904 F.3d at 1380 (emphasis in original) (quoting In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC
Generally speaking, an invention is presumed to have been invented on the date when the patent application was filed. 1–3 Chisum on Patents § 3.08 (“[T]he date of invention of the applicant or patentee . . . is presumed to be the date he files a complete patent application.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
“Reexamination proceedings . . . are intended to ‘permit any party to petition the [US]PTO to review the ef- ficacy of a patent, following its issuance, on the basis of new information about preexisting technology that may have escaped review at the time of the initial examination.’” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1275 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Walter
Cir. 2016) (citing In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation
(2×)
This is also the correct construction because it is “the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the written description.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd.
“Whether the examiner actually considered this issue can only be determined by reviewing the prosecution history.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Csb-System International, Inc.
In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ipcom Gmbh & Co. v. Htc Corporation
Also, during reexamination, claims are given “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 2014), we held that mandamus 4 See In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d 786, 789 , superseded by statute as recognized by In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Discussion We review the Board’s legal conclusions, e.g., claim construction, de novo. 1 In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed.Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Given the statutory scheme, there was no 4 See In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d 786, 789 , superseded by statute as recognized by In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Khayrallah
In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2012) (“The broadest reasonable interpretation, like claim construction in the infringement context, is a question of law that we review de novo.”) (citing In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed.Cir.2011)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC
In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed.Cir.2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Ditto
Discussion When reviewing Board determinations, we review “questions of law, such as claim construction and statutory interpretation, de novo.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc.
(D.I. 332 at 49-54) However, MobileMedia does not dispute that, if Walters is indeed prior art, it anticipates each limitation of the asserted claims. 33 A patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application only if “the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citing Lockwood v. Am.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Patent and Trademark Office
See, e.g., In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.2012); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed.Cir.2011); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed.Cir.2011); In re Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Montgomery
(2×)
In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smartgene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, Sa
“Thus, other challenges to the patentability of original claims' — such as qualification as patentable subject matter under § 101 or satisfaction of the written description and enablement requirements of § 112 — may not be raised in reexamination proceedings.” In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1275-76 (Fed.Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 302 (reexaminations may be conducted on “the basis of any prior art”).
cited
Cited "see"
ThroughPuter, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Leading Technology Composites, Inc. v. MV2, LLC
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268 , 1276 n.6 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar Electro Oy
(2×)
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1275-76 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Dako Denmark A/S v. Leica Biosystems Melbourne Party Ltd.
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
American Innotek, Inc. v. United States
Id. at 1305 ; see In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.
(2×)
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268 (Fed.Cir.2011); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362 (Fed.Cir.1998); In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d 786 (Fed.Cir.1997), superseded by statute as recognized in In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d at 1277 ; In re Recreative Techs.
discussed
Cited "see"
graff/ross Holdings LLP v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1275-76 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.552 ) ("[Qlualification as patentable subject matter under § 101 ... may not be raised in reexamination proceedings.”). 8 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA CORPORATION v. SANDOZ INC.
See, e.g., In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Natural Alternatives Int'l, Inc. v. Iancu
Cir. 2008) (explaining that "when neither the PTO nor the Board has previously considered priority, there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a [continuation-in-part] application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application," so the district court may place the burden on the patent owner to "come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to claim priority to an earlier filing date"); see also In re NTP, Inc. , 654 F.3d at 1277 ("[W]hen a patentee argues that its claims are entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application, the examiner must u…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Luv n' Care, Ltd. v. Mayborn USA, Inc.
See also In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed.Cir.2011) ("[T]he applica tions [must have] at least one common inventor.”). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Ntp, Inc.
2010-1277.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sep 14, 2010.
Unpublished
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1) · W.D. Texas (1)
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reexa1nination Nos. 90/006,495 and 95/000,020) IN RE NTP, INC., 2010-1277 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. ON MOTION ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office moves without opposition for a 39-day exten- sion of time, until October 1, 2010, to file his brief. NTP, Inc. moves without opposition to extend the time to file its reply brief to 34 days from service of the Director’s brief NTP also moves without opposition to extend the time to file the joint appendix to 14 days from the date of service of the reply brief Upon consideration thereof, IT ls ORDERED THAT:
IN RE NTP 2 The motions are granted FOR THE COURT SEP 1 4 wm /s/ J an Horbaly Date J an Horba1y Clerk cc: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. Raymond T. Chen, Esq. 819 "-='s22§lSt;Yaas.,"“ SEP 1 4 2019 .IAN HORBALY CLER-K