Cluster 4643878

green · 55 citation events across 6 courts. Showing the 29 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 29

green BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION v. COOK GROUP INCORPORATED (2023)

Quote Authority · S.D. Ind. · signal: see

See Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

"IPRs use a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof rather than the district court's clear and convincing evidence burden of proof."

green Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (2021)

Quote Authority · Fed. Cir. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion

See Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed.

“In this case it suffices for us to decide that IPRs do not differ sufficiently from the PTO reconsideration avenues available when the patents here were issued to constitute a Fifth Amendment taking.”

green Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (2021)

Quote Authority · Fed. Cir. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion

See Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed.

green Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2020)

Quote Authority · Fed. Cir. · signal: see

See Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1352 (Fed.

“[S]ubstantial evidence supports the [PTAB’s] assessment and weighing of this ev- idence, and we decline to reweigh the evidence on appeal.”

green St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC (2020)

Quote Authority · Fed. Cir.

Id. (“graft material 24 cannot be considered a strip or ring”).

“graft material 24 cannot be considered a strip or ring”

green In Re GOOGLE LLC (2026)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Google has not shown a right to a different conclusion here based on Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

green Jackson v. Collins (2025)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · signal: cf.

Cf. Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1356 (Fed.

so indicating in context of fail- ure to present argument in tribunal under review

green Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc. (2023)

Rule Authority · E.D. Wis.

Cir. 2005) (en banc) used in district court.” Celgene Corp. v. Pete, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

green In Re CELLECT, LLC (2023)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and means such relevant evi- dence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed.

quotation marks and citations omitted

green In Re CELLECT, LLC (2023)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

quotation marks and citations omitted

green Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Vidal (2023)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

II “We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determi- nation de novo and underlying factual findings for substan- tial evidence.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed.

citation omitted

green Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Vidal (2023)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

II “We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determi- nation de novo and underlying factual findings for substan- tial evidence.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed.

citation omitted

green Shamoon v. Resideo Technologies, Inc. (2023)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

This court considered this question in Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

green Shamoon v. Resideo Technologies, Inc. (2023)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

This court considered this question in Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

green Transtex Inc. v. Vidal (2023)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

DISCUSSION “We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determi- nation de novo and underlying factual findings for substan- tial evidence.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed.

green Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Company LLC (2022)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

For example, Celgene Corp. v. Peter held “that the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.” 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

green Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Company LLC (2022)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

green Moxchange LLC v. ALE USA Inc. (2021)

Rule Authority · D. Del.

(See Tr. at 13-14; DI. 42 at 5) Second, as Moxchange persuasively argues, the regeneration must be “‘continuous” to overcome the shortcomings in the prior art of the “static key.” (See Tr. at 14-15; D.I. 42 at 14) As the patent explains, a problem in the prior art was the “use of only one static encryption key ... [which] makes it easier for an intruder to have an ample amount of time to break the key.” (664 patent at 1:60-66) The specification adds that “[a] primary object …

green In Re KAVANAGH (2021)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed.

green Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc. (2021)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

But “[t]his court does not reweigh evidence on appeal.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1352 (Fed.

quot- ing In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

green Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Company LLC (2021)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

In any event, Celgene Corp. v. Peter held “that the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconsti- tutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.” 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

green Norix Group, Inc. v. Correctional Technologies, Inc. (2021)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.

After the PTO initiated the reexamination—which meant that it had “determine[d] [that] the request raise[d] ‘a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent,’” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1359 (Fed.

quoting 35 U.S.C. § 303 (a)

green Verify Smart Corp. v. Askeladden, L.L.C. (2020)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

In Celgene Corp. v. Peter, we held that “the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.” 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.

green Kroy Ip Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (2025)

Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see

See Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 , 1362 n.20 (Fed.

explaining that the AIA was designed “to provide an alternative to district court litigation”

green Terracino v. Trimaco, Inc. (2024)

Cited · E.D.N.C. · signal: see

See Celgene Corporation v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1350-53 (Fed.

green Christy, Inc. v. United States (2020)

Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see

See id. at 13–14 (cit- ing Celgene, 931 F.3d at 1361 ).

green Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (2020)

Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see, e.g.

Cir. 2014) (emphasis omitted); see, e.g., Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 , 1350–51 (Fed.

holding that the Board “was cor- rect to not allow the extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, to trump the persuasive intrinsic evidence” (cleaned up)

green Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (2020)

Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see also

Id. at 1362 ; see also id. at 1358 & n.13 (affirming that our prior decisions ruling that retroactive application of reexamina- tion does not violate the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh 6 To the extent Genentech intends to separately raise a due process challenge, the limited conclusory asser- tions it presented are “insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.” See Trading Techs.

green Osi Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Apotex Inc. (2019)

Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see, e.g.

See e.g., Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed.