§

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

13595757 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2015)
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain

    503 U.S. 249 (1992)   Cited 2,703 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

  2. Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire

    477 U.S. 207 (1986)   Cited 436 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admiralty jurisdiction was properly invoked in a suit by survivors of offshore workers who perished in a helicopter crash while being transported from an offshore platform to shore

  3. Pitney Bowes v. Hewlett-Packard Company

    182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,007 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if, "when read in the context of the entire claim," the preamble "recites limitations of the claim., or . . . is `necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to" the claim, the preamble language is properly treated as limiting

  4. New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire

    455 U.S. 331 (1982)   Cited 156 times
    Holding that the Federal Power Act did not evince an intent to permit States to prohibit export of hydroelectric power out of state

  5. TIP Systems, LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.

    529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 129 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the use of "and" indicates that both elements must be present

  6. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,415 times   2196 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  7. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  8. Section 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 37 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")

  9. Section 42.301 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.301   Cited 21 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Defining the scope of CBM review

  10. Section 42.208 - Institution of post-grant review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.208   Cited 5 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. (b) At any time prior to institution of post-grant review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute post-grant review. (c) Post-grant review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented

  11. Section 42.304 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.304   3 Legal Analyses

    In addition to any other notices required by subparts A and C of this part, a petition must request judgment against one or more claims of a patent identified by patent number. In addition to the requirements of §§ 42.6 , 42.8 , 42.22 , and 42.24 the petition must set forth: (a)Grounds for standing. The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302 . (b)Identification