Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

Andersen v. Fiber

Holding that the specification disavowed claim scope

In re Gleave

Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.

Noting that licenses "may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record" (quoting In re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) )

In re Schreiber

Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp.

Finding 0.001 to 1.0 percent range did not disclose a D.I to 5.0 percent range

Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner

Holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim

In re Soni

Finding "substantially improved results" to overcome obviousness when the 50-fold improvement in tensile strength was much greater than would have been predicted

Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.

Holding that while the disclosure of a broad genus does not disclose every species within that genus, where there is "no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range" the disclosure of the range in the prior art discloses the value within the range

Omeprazole Patent v. Apotex

Finding pharmaceutical formulation not ready for patenting prior to clinical trials, and noting that "[t]he existence of the formulation, however, does not establish that the Astra scientists had determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose."

Section 112 - Specification

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

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."

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings