§

CELLECT LLC (Assignee) et al.

2021005302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)
CELLECT LLC (Assignee) et al.

33 Cited authorities

  1. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 391 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the best mode does not extend to unclaimed, non-novel subject matter

  2. Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff

    758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 134 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a stay for purposes of reexamination is within the district court's discretion

  3. Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

    764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 48 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a claim construction that was supported by the intrinsic evidence and the inventor's testimony

  4. Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    592 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 40 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two serially-filed divisional applications met the "filed as a result of requirement despite one of the divisional applications having been initially filed as a continuation

  5. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.

    689 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 34 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in district court consideration of compounds as a whole and whether one of skill would be motivated to modify compound in reference patent

  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. Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.

    753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 31 times   30 Legal Analyses
    In Gilead, we recognized that use of issuance date alone, post-URAA, to determine whether a patent was invalid for ODP had "several shortcomings."

  8. Merck Co., v. Hi-Tech

    482 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 38 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a patent term extension under § 156 may be applied to a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer"

  9. Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharm. Inc.

    909 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 19 times   12 Legal Analyses

    2017-2173 2017-2175 2017-2176 2017-2178 2017-2179 2017-2180 2017-2182 2017-2183 2017-2184 12-07-2018 NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Novartis AG, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL INC., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, Defendants-Appellees Christina A. L. Schwarz, Venable LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Nicholas Nick Kallas, Laura Katherine Fishwick, Christopher Earl Loh. William M. Jay, Goodwin

  10. In re Lonardo

    119 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 35 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he claimed structure of the device suggests how it is to be used and that use thus would have been obvious"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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 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

  13. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 604 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  14. Section 286 - Time limitation on damages

    35 U.S.C. § 286   Cited 330 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Precluding recovery for infringement more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim

  15. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 218 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"

  16. Section 156 - Extension of patent term

    35 U.S.C. § 156   Cited 207 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Granting five-year extension of patent term based upon regulatory review of the product Abilify® (aripiprazole) by the FDA

  17. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  18. Section 253 - Disclaimer

    35 U.S.C. § 253   Cited 180 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Granting patentee authority to disclaim issued or pending claims

  19. 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

  20. Section 306 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 306   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete

  21. 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

  22. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  23. Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.550   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings