Esip Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC (2020)
green
· 26 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 8 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2020 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
202020232026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Federal Express Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated (2026)
For example, in ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, we held that “the Board’s § 312(a)(2) real-party-in-interest determination is final and non-appealable.” 958 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed.
green
Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company (2025)
See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (d) (“The determination by the Director whether to in- stitute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”); Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 590 U.S. 45 , 52–53 (2020); IGT, 144 F.4th at 1365; ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed.
Cir. 2021) Case: 23-2110 Document: 86 Page: 7 Filed: 06/05/2025 DOLBY LAB’YS LICENSING CORP. v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 7 (holding appellant failed to show standing to appeal an IPR final decision based on ongoing license obligations that would not be affected by the validity determination).
green
Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (2022)
See ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed.
“We find no er- ror in the Board’s decision to credit the opinion of one ex- pert over another, and we do not reweigh evidence on appeal.”
green
Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (2022)
See ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed.
“We find no er- ror in the Board’s decision to credit the opinion of one ex- pert over another, and we do not reweigh evidence on appeal.”
green
Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC (2021)
In ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed.
green
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc. (2021)
Case: 19-1688 Document: 72 Page: 13 Filed: 03/09/2021 UNILOC 2017 LLC v. FACEBOOK INC. 13 LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed.
quoting Thryv, 140 S. Ct. at 1373–74
green
ESIP Series 1 v. doTerra International (2022)
Moreover, even if the ’130 patent claims had been 102 See Dkt. 115 at 14; Dkt. 128 at 9. 103 See Dkt. 78-1 at 29 (“Dr. Bell does not provide the factual basis for his testimony.”); ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed.
referencing Dr. Bell’s testimony as “conclusory and unsupported” and “unhelpful and unpersuasive”