§

BELLOWS et al. V. XU et al.

13909153 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018)
BELLOWS et al. V. XU et al.

17 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. LTD

    927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 273 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "at least about" was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent

  3. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  4. Sewall v. Walters

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

  5. UMC Electronics Co. v. United States

    816 F.2d 647 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 106 times
    Stating the on-sale bar "does not lend itself to formulation into a set of precise requirements"

  6. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  7. DeGeorge v. Bernier

    768 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that "resort to the specification is necessary only when there are ambiguities inherent in the claim language or obvious from arguments of counsel"

  8. Biogen Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research

    785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Board decisions

  9. 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 &

  10. 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"

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,014 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  13. Section 9 - Certified copies of records

    35 U.S.C. § 9

    The Director may furnish certified copies of specifications and drawings of patents issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, and of other records available either to the public or to the person applying therefor. 35 U.S.C. § 9 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 794, §10; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; renumbered §9 and amended Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§4717(1), 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-580, 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107-273, div. C,