Legal Opinion
In Re: Chudik
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided March 27, 2017No. 2016-1817PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Steven Chudik appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that claims 1,15,18, and 33-40 of U.S. Patent Application 11/525,631 (“’631 application”) are anticipated by two prior art references. Because substantial evidence does not support the Board’s determination, we reverse.
Background
1. The ’631 Application
The ’631 application, entitled “Glenoid Implant for Minimally Invasive Shoulder Replacement Surgery,” describes an invention related to “rotator cuff sparing procedures and associated devices for shoulder replacement surgery.” J.A. 24, ¶…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- In Re Bayer AktiengesellschaftCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Enplas Display Device Corpora v. Seoul Semiconductor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- In Re: HodgesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GmbhCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022
- Technical Consumer Products v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
- Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2025
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.