§

Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC v. Pozen Inc.

14244471 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)
Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC v. Pozen Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 347 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee had the burden to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date when it was undisputed that a certain reference was invalidating prior art

  2. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Lilly & Co.

    119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 331 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that written description requires more than a "mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention"

  3. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 392 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  4. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 120 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Determining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable

  5. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 88 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of JMOL of lack of written description

  6. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.

    772 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " party asserting invalidity based on 35 U.S. § 112 bears no less a burden and no fewer responsibilities than any other patent challenger"

  7. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.

    214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 73 times
    In Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the court explained the need "to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification."

  8. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  9. In re Gosteli

    872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]he CCPA's later decisions control because that court always sat en banc”

  10. Utter v. Hiraga

    845 F.2d 993 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that in an interference proceeding "[t]here is no inconsistency in awarding a generic count to one inventor, while awarding a patentably distinct species count to another."

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   459 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,942 times   959 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   627 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  14. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 188 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  15. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  16. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 5 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"