§

Mylan Inc. v. Medikit, LLC

No. 91226398 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2017)
Mylan Inc. v. Medikit, LLC

18 Cited authorities

  1. Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 692 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim

  2. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 169 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

  3. Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc.

    659 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times

    No. 2011-1048. October 18, 2011. Appeal From the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sidney H. Stein, J. Evan R. Chesler, Cravath, Swaine Moore, LLP, of New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Richard J. Stark and David Greenwald. Of counsel on the brief were Robert L. Baechtold, John D. Murnane and William E. Solander, of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper Scinto, of New York, NY. Robert B. Breisblatt, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, of Chicago

  4. 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

  5. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  6. 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

  7. Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc.

    705 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that challenger established standing under § 1064 notwithstanding the parties’ written agreement not to challenge each other's registration or each other's rights to use and sell goods under the mark

  8. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  9. Danskin, Inc. v. Dan River, Inc.

    498 F.2d 1386 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that a petitioner could not, as a matter of law, seek cancellation of a mark because it had entered a prior settlement agreement with the registrant to "not oppose or petition to cancel directly or indirectly any registration" by that registrant

  10. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 355,868 times   945 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 334,280 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 93,233 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,699 times   329 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  14. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,579 times   324 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  15. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,843 times   125 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,595 times   273 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"

  17. Section 1059 - Renewal of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1059   Cited 40 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Requiring payment of fee to renew trade-mark

  18. Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation

    15 U.S.C. § 1068   Cited 25 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"