Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Ex Parte 8061359 et al

21 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 355 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

  3. In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent

    639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 291 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions" because such functions are "coextensive with the structure disclosed."

  4. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  5. Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc.

    665 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over claims that were asserted in the complaint but not in the plaintiff's infringement contentions or defendant's invalidity contentions

  6. Tronzo v. Biomet

    156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 197 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding substantial evidence did not support finding that parent application provided written description of later-claimed genus encompassing any shape where it "tout[ed] the advantages of conical shape," mentioned other shapes only in reciting the prior art, and "specifically distinguishe[d] the prior art as inferior"

  7. Critikon v. Becton Dickinson Vasc. Access

    120 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that the district court clearly erred in determining that the opinion of counsel negated willful infringement claim, partly because the opinion included "no interpretation of claim language" and "no meaningful discussion of the prosecution history"

  8. Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping

    424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 156 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand" the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it

  9. Capon v. Eshhar

    418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was error for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to require "recitation in the specification of the nucleotide sequence of claimed DNA, when that sequence is already known in the field"

  10. Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim directed toward a pill with a layer with 90% of an active ingredient could be infringed by a pill with 85% of that ingredient, because "[u]nder the doctrine of equivalents a tablet layer with 85% of the agent can be fairly characterized as an insubstantial change from a tablet layer with 90% of the agent."

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,422 times   1069 Legal Analyses
    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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 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."

  13. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  14. Section 41.79 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.79   Cited 5 times

    (a) Parties to the appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: (1) The original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a) , (2) The original § 41.77(b) decision under the provisions of § 41.77(b)(2) , (3) The expiration of the time for the owner to take action under § 41.77(b)(2) , or (4) The new decision of the Board under § 41.77(f) . (b) (1) The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked

  15. Section 41.81 - Action following decision

    37 C.F.R. § 41.81   Cited 2 times

    The parties to an appeal to the Board may not appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under § 1.983 of this title until all parties' rights to request rehearing have been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board. 37 C.F.R. §41.81

  16. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1

  17. Section 1.956 - Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.956   Cited 1 times

    The time for taking any action by a patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for such extension must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, but in no case will the mere filing of a request effect any extension. Any request for such extension must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g) . See § 1.304(a) for extensions of time for filing a