Ex Parte Griffith et al

5 Cited authorities

  1. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. Glaxosmithkline

    349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 136 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that later patent claiming pharmaceutical composition was obvious variant of earlier patent claiming pharmaceutical composition with "enhanced storage stability, the closed container, the packaged unit-dosages"
  2. Pfizer v. Teva Pharm

    518 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 72 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir.2008), which addressed a patent infringement action filed by Pfizer on the '068 patent, we held the relevant claims of the '068 patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting in light of the earlier issued '165 patent.
  3. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    611 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in claim construction, "the specification to be consulted is that of the issued patent, not an earlier application"
  4. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"
  5. 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