§

Farmaco-Logica B.V. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc.

No. 91184047 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2015)
Farmaco-Logica B.V. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach

    731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."

  2. Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp.

    538 F.2d 180 (8th Cir. 1976)   Cited 194 times
    Holding that fraud on the court "must be supported by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence"

  3. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc.

    778 F.2d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that a utility patent may claim priority from a design patent

  4. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  5. T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac

    77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services

  6. Albert v. Kevex Corp.

    729 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 41 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the disclaimer of the allegedly interfering claims divested the district court of jurisdiction over the § 291 interfering patents action

  7. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  8. Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc.

    945 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors

  9. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  10. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,300 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"