Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
PARE V. MENGAL et al.

26 Cited authorities

  1. Smithkline Diagnostics v. Helena Laboratories

    859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 384 times
    Holding that an accused infringer's mis-marking of a product could not convert by estoppel an admittedly non-infringing product into an infringing product

  2. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 334 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  3. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  4. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  5. Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc.

    793 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 164 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although it is an important consideration, "not every failure to seek an opinion of competent counsel will mandate an ultimate finding of willfulness"

  6. Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

    110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 115 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of such a suggestion to combine is dispositive in an obviousness determination"

  7. Carella v. Starlight Archery and Pro Line Co.

    804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 94 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the Federal Circuit recognized that the statutory language “known or used by others” in 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)

  8. Fiers v. Revel

    984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 74 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim to a genus of DNA molecules not supported by written description of a method for obtaining the molecules

  9. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  10. In re Napier

    55 F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 37 times
    Determining proper standard of review is unnecessary because board's fact finding could be affirmed under more stringent standard

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,030 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,402 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  14. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  15. Section 10 - Publications

    35 U.S.C. § 10   Cited 1 times

    (a) The Director may publish in printed, typewritten, or electronic form, the following: 1. Patents and published applications for patents, including specifications and drawings, together with copies of the same. The Patent and Trademark Office may print the headings of the drawings for patents for the purpose of photolithography. 2. Certificates of trade-mark registrations, including statements and drawings, together with copies of the same. 3. The Official Gazette of the United States Patent and