§
null

18 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 604 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.

    417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 588 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim term “aesthetically pleasing” indefinite because, even though the preferred embodiment provided “examples of aesthetic features of screen displays that can be controlled by the authoring system,” the specification did not indicate “what selection of these features would be ‘aesthetically pleasing’ ”

  3. Allen Engineering v. Bartell Industries

    299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 505 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite

  4. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 421 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  5. Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.

    675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 220 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because Noah had made the same indefiniteness arguments during claim construction before the district court, waiver did not apply

  6. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs

    806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that the limitation that the claimed wheelchair have a "front leg portion . . . so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats thereof" was not indefinite

  7. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. At & T Mobility LLC

    785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 57 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment of indefiniteness, which was based on numerous detailed findings of fact by the district court, including evaluating expert testimony, when the indefiniteness inquiry was intertwined with claim construction

  8. In re Packard

    751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 36 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Addressing the issues separately

  9. In re Fought

    941 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 9 times

    2019-1127 11-04-2019 IN RE: David FOUGHT, Martin Clanton, Appellants Ryan Matthew Fountain, Mishawaka, IN, argued for appellants. William LaMarca, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Thomas L. Casagrande, Thomas W. Krause, Joseph Matal, Coke Morgan Stewart. Moore, Circuit Judge. Ryan Matthew Fountain, Mishawaka, IN, argued for appellants. William LaMarca, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent

  10. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood

    258 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 115 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 127, Docket 24656. Argued December 12, 1957. Decided July 1, 1958. Rehearing Denied August 18, 1958. Certiorari Denied November 10, 1958. See 79 S.Ct. 124. John Vaughan Groner, New York City (Charles B. Smith and Fish, Richardson Neave, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee. William O. Heilman, New York City (James M. Heilman, and Heilman Heilman, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for defendant-appellant. Before MEDINA, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. LUMBARD, Circuit Judge

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 times   2273 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  15. 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

  16. 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