§

Ghosh et al. V. Morgan V. Ghosh et al. V. Ghosh et al.

11852854 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2015)
Ghosh et al. V. Morgan V. Ghosh et al. V. Ghosh et al.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,714 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 313 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  3. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 171 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  4. 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

  5. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology

    709 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the district court properly applied Phillips in discounting expert's declaration that only described "how" a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term but failed to explain "why"

  6. 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"

  7. Biogen Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research

    785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Board decisions

  8. OKA v. YOUSSEFYEH

    849 F.2d 581 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 27 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Oka, even under the preponderant evidence standard, the junior party could not prove prior invention by presenting a range of dates that primarily predated but overlapped by one day with the senior party's conception date.

  9. Griffith v. Kanamaru

    816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 87-1042. April 8, 1987. Eric S. Spector of Jones, Tullar Cooper, P.C., Arlington, Va., argued for appellant. Harold C. Wegner of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C., argued for appellees. With him on brief was Helmuth A. Wegner, of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C.; Barry E. Bretschneider and Herbert I. Cantor, of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before BISSELL, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit

  10. Berges v. Gottstein

    618 F.2d 771 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 15 times
    Applying rule of reason in context of reduction to practice

  11. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 286 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  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 41.208 - Content of substantive and responsive motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.208   Cited 6 times   60 Legal Analyses

    The general requirements for motions in contested cases are stated at § 41.121(c) . (a) In an interference, substantive motions must: (1) Raise a threshold issue, (2) Seek to change the scope of the definition of the interfering subject matter or the correspondence of claims to the count, (3) Seek to change the benefit accorded for the count, or (4) Seek judgment on derivation or on priority. (b) To be sufficient, a motion must provide a showing, supported with appropriate evidence, such that, if

  15. 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

  16. 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