§

FACE et al. V. Face et al. V. Pistor et al.

12399954 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015)
FACE et al. V. Face et al. V. Pistor et al.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 149 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  2. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co. v. Checkers, Inc.

    754 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1985)   Cited 200 times
    Holding that withholding payment due under a contract to enhance bargaining power could constitute a Chapter 93A violation

  3. UMC Electronics Co. v. United States

    816 F.2d 647 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 106 times
    Stating the on-sale bar "does not lend itself to formulation into a set of precise requirements"

  4. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.

    127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 57 times
    Concluding that courts should evaluate the question of objective baselessness "in light of ... information [available] at the time of filing"

  5. Hitzeman v. Rutter

    243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 23 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting “conception” of invention based on later-discovered inherent property

  6. Eaton v. Evans

    204 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 22 times
    In Eaton, this court stated that "this Court's well-established precedent requires that the constructed embodiment or performed process include the precise elements in the count."

  7. Reese v. Hurst

    661 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 34 times
    In Reese v. Hurst, 211 USPQ 936, 941, 943 (CCPA 1981), our predecessor court affirmed a Board decision that a reduction to practice had occurred on the date that test results were obtained instead of on the later date when the results were conveyed to the inventor; however, the court did not explain this aspect of its decision.

  8. Correge v. Murphy

    705 F.2d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 13 times
    Requiring that the embodiment include every element of the count to have an actual reduction to practice

  9. Meitzner v. Corte

    537 F.2d 524 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-554. July 15, 1976. Eugene Sabol, Fisher, Christen Sabol, Washington, D.C., attys. of record, for appellants; George W. F. Simmons, Robert A. Doherty, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. Nicholas E. Oglesby, Jr., Connolly Hutz, Wilmington, Del., attys. of record, for appellees. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  10. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  11. Section 41.121 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.121   Cited 15 times   77 Legal Analyses

    (a)Types of motions - (1)Substantive motions. Consistent with the notice of requested relief, if any, and to the extent the Board authorizes, a party may file a motion: (i) To redefine the scope of the contested case, (ii) To change benefit accorded for the contested subject matter, or (iii) For judgment in the contested case. (2)Responsive motions. The Board may authorize a party to file a motion to amend or add a claim, to change inventorship, or otherwise to cure a defect raised in a notice of

  12. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal

  13. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order

  14. Section 41.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 41.8   Cited 2 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) In an appeal brief (§§ 41.37 , 41.67 , or 41.68 ) or at the initiation of a contested case (§ 41.101 ), and within 20 days of any change during the proceeding, a party must identify: (1) Its real party-in-interest, and (2) Each judicial or administrative proceeding that could affect, or be affected by, the Board proceeding. (b) For contested cases, a party seeking judicial review of a Board proceeding must file a notice with the Board of the judicial review within 20 days of the filing of the

  15. Section 41.205 - Settlement agreements

    37 C.F.R. § 41.205

    (a)Constructive notice; time for filing. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135(c) , an agreement or understanding, including collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of an interference must be filed prior to the termination of the interference between the parties to the agreement. After a final decision is entered by the Board, an interference is considered terminated when no appeal ( 35 U.S.C. 141 ) or other review ( 35 U.S.C. 146 ) has been or

  16. Section 41.121 - Amount and account of bond

    27 C.F.R. § 41.121

    (a)Bond amount. Except for the maximum and minimum amounts stated in this paragraph, the total amount of the bond or bonds required under this subpart must be in an amount not less than the amount of unpaid tax chargeable at any one time against the bond or bonds. The maximum and minimum amounts of such bond or bonds are as follows: Taxable article Bond amount maximum (in dollars) Bond amount minimum (in dollars) (1) Cigarettes 250,000 1,000 (2) Any combination of taxable articles 250,000 1,000 (3)