§

Patricius Hendrikus Cornelis. Van Berkel et al.

14434812 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2019)
Patricius Hendrikus Cornelis. Van Berkel et al.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 391 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the best mode does not extend to unclaimed, non-novel subject matter

  2. In re Kubin

    561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 137 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

  3. Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.

    759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 106 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Upholding jury verdict of invalidity for lack of adequate written description because the pharmaceutical patents did not describe representative examples “to support the full scope of the claims”

  4. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. Glaxosmithkline

    349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 141 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that later patent claiming pharmaceutical composition was obvious variant of earlier patent claiming pharmaceutical composition with "enhanced storage stability, the closed container, the packaged unit-dosages"

  5. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 83 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that issues raised only in a footnote may be deemed waived

  6. Pfizer v. Teva Pharm

    518 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 77 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir.2008), which addressed a patent infringement action filed by Pfizer on the '068 patent, we held the relevant claims of the '068 patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting in light of the earlier issued '165 patent.

  7. Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

    764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 48 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a claim construction that was supported by the intrinsic evidence and the inventor's testimony

  8. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    611 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 33 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in claim construction, "the specification to be consulted is that of the issued patent, not an earlier application"

  9. In re Lonardo

    119 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 35 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he claimed structure of the device suggests how it is to be used and that use thus would have been obvious"

  10. In re Basell Poliolefine

    547 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the two-way test inapplicable where the applicant failed to present the claims in earlier applications in the chain of priority — "Natta's actions, or inactions, had a direct effect on prosecution and thus were responsible for any delay in prosecution"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,413 times   1065 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 6,169 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."

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,543 times   2297 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 188 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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  17. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)