§

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology LLC

13108762 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2014)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology LLC

13 Cited authorities

  1. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 975 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  2. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  3. V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA

    401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 155 times
    Affirming as proper district court's simultaneous claim construction and grant of summary judgment

  4. Neomagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems

    287 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 62 times
    Holding "[i]t is well settled that claims may not be construed by reference to the accused device"

  5. 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.

  6. Monsanto Co. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc.

    No. 4:12-CV-1090 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo. Mar. 24, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    No. 4:12-CV-1090 (CEJ) 03-24-2014 MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. CAROL E. JACKSON MEMORANDUM & ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion for a protective order and motion to determine the sufficiency of responses to requests for admission filed by plaintiffs Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC (collectively Monsanto), against defendants Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (collectively

  7. In re Van Geuns

    988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1088. March 10, 1993. Jack E. Haken, U.S. Philips Corp., Tarrytown, NY, argued, for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief, was Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before ARCHER, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. ARCHER, Circuit Judge. Johannes R. Van Geuns appeals from the September 25, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,173 times   493 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."

  9. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 410 times   205 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  10. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 381 times   636 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  11. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 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"

  12. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 46 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  13. Section 42.63 - Form of evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 42.63   Cited 2 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a)Exhibits required. Evidence consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit. (b)Translation required. When a party relies on a document or is required to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation must be filed with the document. (c)Exhibit numbering. Each party's exhibits must be uniquely numbered sequentially