Legal Opinion
Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided August 10, 2016No. 2015-2073PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
On December 2, 2013, Apple Inc., Google, Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively “Appellees”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (the “'843 patent”), which is owned by appellant Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Ar-endi”). On June 9, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a decision finding claims 1-2, 8, 14-17, 20-21, 23-24, 30, 36-39, and 42-43 would have been obvious. Because the Board misapplied our law on the permissible use of common sense in an obviousness analysis, we reverse.
Baokground
A. The Patent-at-Issue
The…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- In Re Sang-Su LeeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Sandt Technology, Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corporation (Also Known as Resco Metal Products Corp.) and Seven Ocean Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- In Re: Nuvasive, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- In Re: Van OsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Nobel Biocare Services Ag v. Instradent USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Koninklijke Philips N v. v. Google LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.