§

Palese et al. V. Palese et al. V. Kawaoka et al. V. GARCIA-SASTRE et al. V. Palese et al.

09971372 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)
Palese et al. V. Palese et al. V. Kawaoka et al. V. GARCIA-SASTRE et al. V. Palese et al.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Concrete Pipe Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Trust

    508 U.S. 602 (1993)   Cited 1,503 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that withdrawal liability as applied to Concrete Pipe, the employer, did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the imposition of withdrawal liability was clearly rational inasmuch as the employer's liability was based on a proportion of its contributions during its participation in the plan

  2. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 470 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  3. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 287 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

  4. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories

    429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 202 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a witness's conclusory assertion that the evidence demonstrated "conception, diligence and reduction to practice" did not carry a party's burden on summary judgment

  5. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 149 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  6. 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

  7. Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc.

    267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 51 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding only the claims at issue invalid under § 102(g)

  8. Hitzeman v. Rutter

    243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 23 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting “conception” of invention based on later-discovered inherent property

  9. 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."

  10. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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