§

Aries et al. V. Matlin et al.

13082657 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014)
Aries et al. V. Matlin et al.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Coleman v. Dines

    754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 96 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.

  2. Brown v. Barbacid

    276 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 31 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "an inventor's own unwitnessed documentation does not [independently] corroborate inventor's testimony about [conception]."

  3. Dawson v. Dawson

    710 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 14 times   5 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 2012–1214 2012–1215 2012–1216 2012–1217. 2013-03-25 Chandler DAWSON, Appellant, v. Chandler DAWSON and Lyle Bowman, Cross–Appellant. Steven B. Kelber, Berenato & White, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, argued for appellant. Joel M. Freed, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. With him on the brief were Natalia Blinkova and Aamer Ahmed. BRYSON Steven B. Kelber, Berenato & White, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, argued for appellant. Joel M. Freed, McDermott Will &

  4. Hitzeman v. Rutter

    243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 23 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting “conception” of invention based on later-discovered inherent property

  5. Eaton v. Evans

    204 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    In Eaton, this court stated that "this Court's well-established precedent requires that the constructed embodiment or performed process include the precise elements in the count."

  6. Brand v. Miller

    487 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that junior party failed to prove derivation by senior party because it "did not show the relationship between" components and that the record was "[l]acking an explanation . . . as to how the [components] would be arranged to perform the claimed method"

  7. Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy

    742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting we do not "sit to review what the Commission has not decided"

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,020 times   1020 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  10. 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

  11. Section 41.207 - Presumptions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.207   Cited 13 times   19 Legal Analyses

    (a)Priority - (1)Order of invention. Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. If two parties are accorded the benefit of the same earliest date of constructive reduction to practice, then neither party is entitled to a presumption of priority with respect to the other such party. (2)Evidentiary standard. Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except a party must prove priority by clear and

  12. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order

  13. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1

  14. Section 41.155 - Objection; motion to exclude; motion in limine

    37 C.F.R. § 41.155   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition. Objections to deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other than deposition. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection must be served within five business days of service of evidence, other than deposition evidence, to which the objection is directed. (2)Supplemental evidence. The party

  15. Section 41.205 - Settlement agreements

    37 C.F.R. § 41.205

    (a)Constructive notice; time for filing. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135(c) , an agreement or understanding, including collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of an interference must be filed prior to the termination of the interference between the parties to the agreement. After a final decision is entered by the Board, an interference is considered terminated when no appeal ( 35 U.S.C. 141 ) or other review ( 35 U.S.C. 146 ) has been or