§

Pergolizzi et al. V. Urdea et al.

07340031 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2014)
Pergolizzi et al. V. Urdea et al.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 248 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee's failure to show that an accused product meets every claim limitation recited in a properly construed claim results in summary judgment of non-infringement

  2. Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communication Systems, Inc.

    522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 111 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether prior art was in public use on basis of witness testimony, documentary evidence, patentee's admissions

  3. Capon v. Eshhar

    418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 68 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was error for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to require "recitation in the specification of the nucleotide sequence of claimed DNA, when that sequence is already known in the field"

  4. Bayer Cropscience AG v. DOW Agrosciences LLC

    728 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[n]othing in the intrinsic record affirmatively indicates that, if the phrase '2,4—D monooxygenase' is descriptive, the 'mono' part is to be ignored"

  5. In re Berger

    279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to consider the merits of indefiniteness rejections not contested before the Board

  6. Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa Research Foundation

    455 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 9 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Regents, this Court explained that a party can defeat a § 135(b)(1) bar by showing "that claims filed after the critical date find support in the claims filed before the critical date" and explained that the relationship between post- and pre-critical date claims is "dispositive of the section 135(b)(1) question."

  7. Aqua-Aerobic Systems v. Aerators, Inc.

    211 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no infringement under doctrine of equivalents because patentee failed to offer relevant evidence

  8. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.

    Civil No. 10-40124-FDS (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2013)

    Civil No. 10-40124-FDS 08-14-2013 SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC., Defendant. F. Dennis Saylor IV MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SAYLOR, J. This is an appeal of a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI"). On August 7, 2006, the PTO declared an interference between various claims of U.S. Patent 5,124,246 (currently owned by plaintiff Siemens Healthcare

  9. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Monsanto Technology LLC

    671 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    No. 2011–1285. 2012-02-28 PIONEER HI–BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant, v. MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Appellee. Joseph Lucci, Woodcock Washburn, LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were John P. Donohue, Jr., S. Maurice Valla and John F. Murphy. Robert E. Hanson, SNR Denton US LLP, of Dallas, TX, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Steven G. Spears, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, of Houston, TX, and Lawrence M. Lavin, Jr., Monsanto Technology LLC, of St.

  10. Yorkey v. Diab

    605 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 2 times
    Stating that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in an interference proceeding

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,944 times   959 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  13. 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