§

Abu-Isa V. Muirhead et al.

11498118 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)
Abu-Isa V. Muirhead et al.

22 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 342 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"

  2. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.

    376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 250 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to be an inventor with standing to bring a section 256 claim, the alleged inventor must have "contribute[d] to the conception of the claimed invention."

  3. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 317 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  4. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 289 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

  5. Finnigan Corp. v. Inter. Trade Comm

    180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a witness's testimony of an invalidating public use must be corroborated to satisfy the interested party's burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence

  6. Fina Oil & Chemical Co. v. Ewen

    123 F.3d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 198 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a declaratory plaintiff may establish an actual controversy in an inventorship dispute by averring, inter alia, that it holds a "recognized interest" in a patent that could be adversely affected by a § 256 action

  7. Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 151 times
    Holding that an accused product did not infringe because it "relied on a different technology that could produce results unattainable by" the corresponding structure in the subject patent

  8. Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.

    106 F.3d 976 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 159 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that explaining the state of the art and providing well-known information found in textbooks was insufficient for joint inventorship

  9. Sewall v. Walters

    21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 87 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventorship is a question of law

  10. Coleman v. Dines

    754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 95 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 116 - Inventors

    35 U.S.C. § 116   Cited 344 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, outside the IPR context, "the Director may permit the application to be amended" to fix inventorship errors

  13. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  14. Section 1.47 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.47   Cited 19 times   4 Legal Analyses

    37 C.F.R. §1.47

  15. Section 41.121 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.121   Cited 15 times   77 Legal Analyses

    (a)Types of motions - (1)Substantive motions. Consistent with the notice of requested relief, if any, and to the extent the Board authorizes, a party may file a motion: (i) To redefine the scope of the contested case, (ii) To change benefit accorded for the contested subject matter, or (iii) For judgment in the contested case. (2)Responsive motions. The Board may authorize a party to file a motion to amend or add a claim, to change inventorship, or otherwise to cure a defect raised in a notice of