§

Mathad et al. V. Sawant et al.

12294986 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2014)
Mathad et al. V. Sawant et al.

27 Cited authorities

  1. Ashland Oil, v. Delta Resins Refractories

    776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 117 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hile the opinion testimony of a party having a direct interest in the pending litigation is less persuasive than opinion testimony by a disinterested party, it cannot be disregarded for that reason alone and may be relied upon when sufficiently convincing"

  2. 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

  3. 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"

  4. Scott v. Finney

    34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 51 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Addressing reduction to practice in the priority context

  5. 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."

  6. Brand v. Miller

    487 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that junior party failed to prove derivation by senior party because it "did not show the relationship between" components and that the record was "[l]acking an explanation . . . as to how the [components] would be arranged to perform the claimed method"

  7. DSL Dynamic Sciences Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc.

    928 F.2d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 17 times

    No. 90-1395. March 19, 1991. Bruce E. O'Connor, Christensen, O'Connor, Johnson Kindness, Seattle, Wash., argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Michael W. Bocianowski. William B. Mallin, Eckert Seamans Cherin Mellott, Pittsburgh, Pa., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Arnold B. Silverman and David V. Radack. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Before RICH, PLAGER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit

  8. Newkirk v. Lulejian

    825 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 17 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring an actual reduction to practice and noting that proof of more than theoretical capability is required

  9. Langer v. Kaufman

    465 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 23 times
    In Langer, the court extended Heard to provide that where there is an objective basis for identifying the novel features of an invention, there must be evidence that the inventor timely considered it. The facts of the Langer interference were essentially identical to those in Heard: the invention called for a catalyst using a particular crystalline compound, and as defined in the count the new compound was identified by a characteristic x-ray diffraction pattern.

  10. Heard v. Burton

    333 F.2d 239 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 26 times
    In Heard, our predecessor court held, in the context of an interference contest, that a party who first reduced to practice, but who "fail[ed] to recognize that he had produced a new form [of matter]... is indicative that he never conceived the invention."

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,288 times   1030 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. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,180 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  13. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,843 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  14. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  15. Section 15-A:1 - Purpose

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 15-A:1   Cited 10 times

    The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that the performance of official duties does not give rise to a conflict of interest, by requiring the following persons to file a statement of financial interests with the secretary of state. This chapter shall be liberally construed to effect this purpose. RSA 15-A:1 2006, 21:8, eff. June 2, 2006.

  16. 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

  17. Section 41.207 - Presumptions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.207   Cited 13 times   19 Legal Analyses

    (a)Priority - (1)Order of invention. Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. If two parties are accorded the benefit of the same earliest date of constructive reduction to practice, then neither party is entitled to a presumption of priority with respect to the other such party. (2)Evidentiary standard. Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except a party must prove priority by clear and

  18. 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

  19. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1

  20. Section 41.158 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 41.158   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. Testimony on United States patent law will not be admitted. (b) If a party relies on a technical test or data from such a test, the party must provide an affidavit explaining: (1) Why the test or data is being used, (2) How the test was performed and the data was generated, (3) How the data is used to determine a value, (4) How the test is regarded in the relevant

  21. Section 41.155 - Objection; motion to exclude; motion in limine

    37 C.F.R. § 41.155   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition. Objections to deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other than deposition. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection must be served within five business days of service of evidence, other than deposition evidence, to which the objection is directed. (2)Supplemental evidence. The party