§

Quake et al. V. Lo et al.

13070275 - (S) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2014)
Quake et al. V. Lo et al.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 305 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  3. Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 126 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of no enablement where defendant "failed to make the threshold showing that... experimentation is necessary to practice the claimed methods"

  4. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong

    860 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the activities in the [lower] court are a nullity when the [lower] court lacks subject[-]matter jurisdiction"

  5. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 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

  6. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  7. Section 146 - Civil action in case of derivation proceeding

    35 U.S.C. § 146   Cited 284 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Filing in the Patent and Trademark Office of a certified copy of the judgment

  8. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal

  9. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order

  10. Section 41.204 - Notice of basis for relief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.204   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)Priority statement. (1) A party may not submit evidence of its priority in addition to its accorded benefit unless it files a statement setting forth all bases on which the party intends to establish its entitlement to judgment on priority. (2) The priority statement must: (i) State the date and location of the party's earliest corroborated conception, (ii) State the date and location of the party's earliest corroborated actual reduction to practice, (iii) State the earliest corroborated date

  11. 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

  12. Section 41.205 - Settlement agreements

    37 C.F.R. § 41.205

    (a)Constructive notice; time for filing. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135(c) , an agreement or understanding, including collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of an interference must be filed prior to the termination of the interference between the parties to the agreement. After a final decision is entered by the Board, an interference is considered terminated when no appeal ( 35 U.S.C. 141 ) or other review ( 35 U.S.C. 146 ) has been or