How cited: In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. Norton · Go Syfert

In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. Norton (2000)

green · 1,065 citation events across 23 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 50
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200020132026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2017)
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Id. (“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.”).
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.”
green Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (2016)
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
As the board correctly determined, Fox Thesis and Fox SMART teach each of the elements of claims 12 and 22, other than the hypertext limitations, and Fox Envision teaches applying citation analysis to hypertext SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 17 re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.”
green Medmix Switzerland Ag v. Squires (2026)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Guardant Health, Inc. v. University of Washington (2026)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Cpc Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. v. Assa Abloy Ab (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
citation omitted
green Stryker Corporation v. Osteomed LLC (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
citation omitted
green Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2b, Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
citations omitted
green Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2016) (cit- ing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312, 1316 (Fed.
green Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2016) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312, 1316 (Fed.
green Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
“Substantial evidence means ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. at 1373 (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Xerox Corp. v. X Corp. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Substan- tial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
quoting Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)
green In Re GAMBLE (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2016) (indefiniteness); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
obviousness
green In Re FLOYD (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004), and its fact- finding for substantial evidence.2 In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green In Re LI (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2b, Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
citations omitted
green Billjco, LLC v. Apple Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004), and its factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gart- side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed.
green Billjco, LLC v. Apple Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004), and its factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gart- side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed.
green Sierra Wireless, Ulc v. Sisvel S.P.A. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Ca, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2018) (“If two inconsistent conclusions may rea- sonably be drawn from the evidence in record, the PTAB’s decision to favor one conclusion over the other is the epit- ome of a decision that must be sustained upon review for substantial evidence.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed.
explaining issue on appeal is whether Board’s factual conclusions are “supported by ‘substantial evi- dence’ . . . within the record”
green Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance Company (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Sandstrom v. Microsoft Corporation (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2017) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Regents of the University of California v. Satco Products, Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gart- side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Worldwide Door Components, Inc. v. United States (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
quoting Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)
green In Re MCDONALD (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green In Re MCDONALD (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Irobot Corporation v. Sharkninja Operating LLC (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004), and the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
“Motivation to combine is one of those underlying factual issues.” Id. (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
“Motivation to combine is one of those underlying factual issues.” Id. (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Koss Corporation v. Vidal (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2017) (cit- ing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Koss Corporation v. Vidal (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2017) (cit- ing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Lytone Enterprise, Inc. v. Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004), and the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Lytone Enterprise, Inc. v. Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004), and the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
“Motivation to combine is one of those underlying factual issues.” Id. (citing In re Gart- side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
“Motivation to combine is one of those underlying factual issues.” Id. (citing In re Gart- side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Sharkninja Operating LLC v. Irobot Corporation (2024)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004), and the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green In Re Vaidyanathan (2010)
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir. · signal: see also
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“To facilitate review, this analysis should be 5 IN RE VAIDYANATHAN made explicit.”); see also In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1314 (Fed.
“We have expressly held that the Board’s opinion must explicate its factual conclusions, enabling us to verify readily whether those conclusions are indeed supported by ‘substantial evidence’ contained within the record.”
green In Re: Dane K. Fisher (2005)
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir.
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed.
“Because our review of the Board’s decision is confined to the factual record compiled 04-1465 6 by the Board, we accordingly conclude that the ‘substantial evidence’ standard is appropriate for our review of Board factfindings.”
green Anderson v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (2007)
Quote Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade · 2 citations in this opinion
Id. (“this standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of review”). “[T]he ‘touchstone’ of the ‘arbitrary, capricious’ standard is rationality.” Id. (quoting Hyundai Elecs.
“this standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of review”
green Anderson v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (2006)
Quote Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade · 2 citations in this opinion
Id. (“this *1385 standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of review”).
“this *1385 standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of review”
green United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc. (2006)
Quote Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade · 2 citations in this opinion
Id. (“this standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of *1306 review”).
“this standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of *1306 review”
green International Custom Products, Inc. v. United States (2005)
Quote Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade · 2 citations in this opinion
Id. (“this standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of review”).
“this standard is generally considered to be the most deferential of the APA standards of review”
green American Pacific Plywood, Inc. v. United States (2025)
Rule Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade
On one side of this dispute is the perspective that the substantial-evidence standard “is . . . less def- erential . . . than ‘arbitrary, capricious.’୻” In re Gart- side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
citing Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 , 412–13 n.7 (1983)
green U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coal. v. United States (2025)
Rule Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade
The difference between these two standards of review is of import here as the Federal Circuit has explained that the arbitrary and capricious standard is “highly deferential.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Factory Direct Wholesale, LLC v. Office Kick, Inc. (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D. Ga.
Obviousness “is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
green Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States (2024)
Rule Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.
green Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Dukas (2009)
Quote Authority · D.D.C.
In addition, the Court must “determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue,” by examining the “interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the 14 art . . . .” Id. at 418; In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed.
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references . . . is a pure question of fact.”