§

Jae Gyun. Jeong

15030999 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2019)
Jae Gyun. Jeong

15 Cited authorities

  1. Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

  2. Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 118 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's finding of invalidity for lack of enablement because defendant failed to provide evidence that established the person of ordinary skill would need to engage in “undue experimentation” in order to practice the asserted claims

  3. Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Teva PHARMACEUTI.., Page 1318

    583 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 43 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the method of treatment claims at issue were not enabled “because the ... patent's application did not establish utility”

  4. Nuvo Pharm. (Ireland) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs. Inc.

    923 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 28 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "inventor testimony . . . illuminates the absence of critical description in this case"

  5. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  6. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  7. In re Brana

    51 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 42 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent applicants had established the utility of claimed therapeutic compounds by presenting in vitro test results and evidence of structural similarity to therapeutically useful compounds

  8. Application of Marzocchi

    439 F.2d 220 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 42 times
    Involving the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph

  9. Cross v. Iizuka

    753 F.2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Finding the disclosed practical utility for the claimed compounds — the inhibition of thromboxane synthetase in human or bovine platelet microsomes — sufficiently specific to satisfy the threshold requirement in Kirk and Kawai.

  10. Application of Colianni

    561 F.2d 220 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-735. September 15, 1977. Rehearing Denied October 20, 1977. Fred S. Lockwood, Chicago, Ill., Lockwood, Dewey, Zickert Alex, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,289 times   1031 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   13 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057, Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  15. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and