§

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc.

11949351 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2015)
Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

  1. Muniauction v. Thomson Corp.

    532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 247 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding it obvious to “apply the use of the Internet to existing electronic processes at a time when doing so was commonplace.”

  2. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 152 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[t]he claimed . . . parameters . . . [were] inherent properties of the obvious . . . formulation," and thus "[t]he reduced food effect was an inherent result of [a composition] even if it was previously not known in the prior art that a food effect existed"

  3. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  4. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 124 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Determining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable

  5. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  6. In re Huai-Hung Kao

    639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 88 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "food effect" was obvious because the effect was an inherent property of the composition

  7. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing

    851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patentee bears the burden of proving a nexus between claimed secondary considerations and the merits of the patented invention

  8. Rambus Inc. v. Rea

    731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 72 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board erred when it found objective evidence lacked a nexus where at least some of the evidence related to the "patented design as a whole"

  9. In re Huang

    100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 94 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the inventor's opinion as to the purchaser's reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus

  10. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,840 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. 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."

  13. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 5,025 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

  14. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 380 times   635 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  15. 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"

  16. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 162 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  17. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  18. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  19. Section 42.20 - Generally

    37 C.F.R. § 42.20   Cited 16 times   38 Legal Analyses

    (a)Relief. Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion. (b)Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding. (c)Burden of proof. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. (d)Briefing. The Board may order briefing on any issue involved in the trial. 37 C.F

  20. Section 42.53 - Taking testimony

    37 C.F.R. § 42.53   Cited 4 times   21 Legal Analyses

    (a)Form. Uncompelled direct testimony must be submitted in the form of an affidavit. All other testimony, including testimony compelled under 35 U.S.C. 24 , must be in the form of a deposition transcript. Parties may agree to video-recorded testimony, but may not submit such testimony without prior authorization of the Board. In addition, the Board may authorize or require live or video-recorded testimony. (b)Time and location. (1) Uncompelled direct testimony may be taken at any time to support

  21. Section 42.54 - Protective order

    37 C.F.R. § 42.54   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) A party may file a motion to seal where the motion to seal contains a proposed protective order, such as the default protective order set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The motion must include a certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute. The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information, including, but

  22. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,