In Re NTP, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “priority can be considered and determined during reexamination proceed- ings,” which are governed by similar statutory language
• holding “priority can be considered and determined during reexamination proceed- ings,” which are governed by similar statutory language
• “During reexamination, the examiner reviews the claims in view of various prior art patents and printed publications.”
• “During reexamination, the examiner reviews the claims in view of various prior art patents and printed publications.”
• rejecting claim that examiner “implicitly” found priority, concluding that “[w]hether an examiner considered an issue is context-specific, and here, there is no evidence the examiner actually considered” the matter (emphasis added)
• rejecting claim that examiner “implicitly” found priority, concluding that “[w]hether an examiner considered an issue is context- specific, and here, there is no evidence the examiner actually considered” the matter (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2015-07-08· cited 133×
• Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-07-09· cited 108×
• Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2017-08-04· cited 37×
• Celgene Corporation v. Peter
  Federal Circuit· 2019-07-30· cited 36×
• In Re Montgomery
  Federal Circuit· 2012-05-08· cited 34×
• Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Patent and Trademark Office
  Federal Circuit· 2012-10-23· cited 26×
• In Re: Csb-System International, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-08-09· cited 24×
• Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2022-05-27· cited 24×
• Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2014-02-10· cited 19×
• Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal
  Federal Circuit· 2017-12-22· cited 15×
• In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2015-02-04· cited 10×
• Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2020-07-22· cited 8×
• Natural Alternatives Int'l, Inc. v. Iancu
  Federal Circuit· 2018-10-01· cited 7×
• Smartgene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, Sa
  District of Columbia· 2012-03-30· cited 6×
• American Innotek, Inc. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2016-09-22· cited 5×
• Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd.
  C.D. California· 2016-12-01· cited 5×
• MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2012-11-08· cited 5×
• Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar Electro Oy
  D. Utah· 2017-03-10· cited 3×
• graff/ross Holdings LLP v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
  District of Columbia· 2012-09-25· cited 1×
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2022-02-01

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. Norton
  Federal Circuit· 2000-02-15· cited 665×
• Wms Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology
  Federal Circuit· 1999-09-17· cited 317×
• Lawrence B. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1997-03-04· cited 309×
• PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-04-11· cited 217×
• Dayco Products, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2003-05-23· cited 141×
• Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/hydrocurve, Inc., and Barnes-Hind International, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1986-07-14· cited 131×
• In Re Berwyn E. Etter
  Federal Circuit· 1985-02-27· cited 106×
• In Re American Academy of Science Tech Center
  Federal Circuit· 2004-05-13· cited 76×
• In Re NTP, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-08-01· cited 71×
• In Re Swanson
  Federal Circuit· 2008-09-04· cited 54×
• Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corporation and Stryker Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1999-08-16· cited 50×
• Callicrate v. Wadsworth Manufacturing, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-10-31· cited 46×
• In Re Portola Packaging, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1997-04-07· cited 40×
• In Re Faizulla G. Kathawala
  Federal Circuit· 1993-11-09· cited 28×
• In Re Paul Chu, William Downs, John B. Doyle and Peter v. Smith
  Federal Circuit· 1995-09-14· cited 25×
• In Re Recreative Technologies Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-05-13· cited 24×
• In Re Baker Hughes Incorporated
  Federal Circuit· 2000-06-14· cited 21×
• Patlex Corp. v. Quigg
  District of Columbia· 1988-02-23· cited 1×