§

Aries et al. V. MATLIN et al.

13438572 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015)
Aries et al. V. MATLIN et al.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Biogen Idec MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research

    38 F. Supp. 3d 162 (D. Mass. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Civil No. 13–13061–FDS. 05-22-2014 BIOGEN IDEC MA, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAPANESE FOUNDATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH and Bayer Pharma AG, Defendants. E. Anthony Figg, R. Danny Huntington, Seth E. Cockrum, Sharon E. Crane, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck P.C., Washington, DC, Claire Laporte, Donald R. Ware, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff. Nels Lippert, Tarter, Krinsky & Drogin LLP, Paula Estrada De Martin, S. Calvin Walden, Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Elisabeth M

  2. 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"

  3. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,983 times   993 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  4. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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