§

BAYER CROPSCIENCE NV et al.

90013449 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)
BAYER CROPSCIENCE NV et al.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

    467 U.S. 752 (1984)   Cited 1,467 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"

  2. Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson

    538 U.S. 468 (2003)   Cited 530 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a now-private corporation could not assert sovereign immunity in a suit involving events that occurred when the entity was owned by a foreign sovereign

  3. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC

    625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 134 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the execution of a nunc pro tunc assignment nearly eight months after the filing of the complaint from a parent to its subsidiary did not confer standing as plaintiff was "required to have legal title to the patents on the day it filed the complaint and that requirement can not be met retroactively."

  4. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. Glaxosmithkline

    349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 140 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that later patent claiming pharmaceutical composition was obvious variant of earlier patent claiming pharmaceutical composition with "enhanced storage stability, the closed container, the packaged unit-dosages"

  5. Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese

    402 F.3d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 125 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff in patent-infringement action lost standing by assigning all rights to the asserted patents to a non-party entity and that "the case became moot" as a result of the plaintiff's loss of standing

  6. In re Hubbell

    709 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 33 times   6 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1547. 2013-03-7 In re Jeffrey HUBBELL, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall. Rivka D. Monheit, Pabst Patent Group LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Patrea L. Pabst. Frances M. Lynch, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Amy J. Nelson, Associate Solicitor. O'MALLEY Rivka D. Monheit, Pabst Patent Group LLP, of Atlanta

  7. Akazawa v. Link New Tech

    520 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 29 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Japanese intestacy law governs the ownership of patents where the legal title holder to the patent was a resident of Japan at the time of his death

  8. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  9. In re Fallaux

    564 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 19 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that “harassment by multiple assignees” provides “a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting”

  10. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Noven Pharm., Inc.

    125 F. Supp. 3d 474 (D. Del. 2015)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Civil Action No. 13-527-RGA, Civil Action No. 14-111-RGA (Consolidated) 08-31-2015 Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd., and LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG, Plaintiffs; v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant. Michael P. Kelly, Esq., Daniel M. Silver, Esq., MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas N. Kallas, Esq., Charlotte Jacobsen, Esq., Dominick A. Conde, Esq., Christopher E. Loh, Esq., Daniel J. Minion, Esq

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,154 times   485 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,522 times   2289 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."

  13. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 781 times   276 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  14. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  15. Section 1.321 - Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers

    37 C.F.R. § 1.321   Cited 75 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Incorporating the language of § 253

  16. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well