§

Oshlack et al. V. Devane et al. V. Oshlack et al.

14094968 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)
Oshlack et al. V. Devane et al. V. Oshlack et al.

22 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. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 354 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee had the burden to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date when it was undisputed that a certain reference was invalidating prior art

  3. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 303 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  4. Tronzo v. Biomet

    156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 197 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding substantial evidence did not support finding that parent application provided written description of later-claimed genus encompassing any shape where it "tout[ed] the advantages of conical shape," mentioned other shapes only in reciting the prior art, and "specifically distinguishe[d] the prior art as inferior"

  5. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp.

    441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 85 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding 0.001 to 1.0 percent range did not disclose a D.I to 5.0 percent range

  6. Centocor Ortho Biotech v. Abbott Lab

    636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 71 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims invalid for inadequate written description and reversing the denial of a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law

  7. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.

    230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the disclosure does not have to provide in kaec verba support in order to satisfy the written description requirement

  8. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Board of Regents

    334 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 46 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing an identical interpretation

  9. 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

  10. Application of Lukach

    442 F.2d 967 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 44 times
    Recognizing that there are "anomalies between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures" and citing Hafner as an example

  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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  14. Section 9 - Certified copies of records

    35 U.S.C. § 9

    The Director may furnish certified copies of specifications and drawings of patents issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, and of other records available either to the public or to the person applying therefor. 35 U.S.C. § 9 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 794, §10; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; renumbered §9 and amended Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§4717(1), 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-580, 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107-273, div. C,

  15. 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

  16. Section 41.203 - Declaration

    37 C.F.R. § 41.203   Cited 15 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a)Interfering subject matter. An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa. (b)Notice of declaration. An administrative patent judge declares the patent interference on behalf of the Director. A notice declaring an interference identifies: (1) The interfering subject matter; (2) The involved applications, patents, and claims; (3) The accorded benefit

  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 41.127 - 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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