datingetc com - Antedating a reference
, the first IPR final decision, the PTAB rejected the patent owner’s corroborating documents, declaration, and deposition testimony introduced to prove that he was first to invent the claimed speed limit indicator technology.
patent application publication, or international application publication is not a statutory bar, a pre-AIA 35 U. The filing date can also be antedated by applicant’s earlier foreign priority application or provisional application if 35 U.
102(e) rejection can be overcome by antedating the filing date (see MPEP § 2136.03 regarding critical reference date of pre-AIA 35 U. In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 161 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969). 119 is met and the foreign application or provisional application “supports” (conforms to 35 U.
case, we are sure that plaintiff was none too pleased that Judge Rader was sitting by designation in their case, at least with regard to damages).
In his March 2, 2010 ruling on post-trial motions in , Judge Rader again took the opportunity to illustrate his view of the type of careful scrutiny that district court judges should be giving to damages theories and evidence. In , the patents-in-suit related to particular features of the defendants’ Linux operating system software, specifically, the “multiple virtual workspaces and workspace switching features.” Plaintiffs’ expert had propounded a damages theory under the “entire market value rule,” in which he sought damages based on defendants’ total sales of the entire operating system software.
The first prototype was then manufactured and sent to Patent Owner by the third party months prior to the date of the prior art references relied upon in this challenge.