§

Scharenberg et al. V. Duchateau et al. V. Scharenberg et al.

13405183 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)
Scharenberg et al. V. Duchateau et al. V. Scharenberg et al.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 172 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  2. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 149 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  3. Shu-Hui Chen v. Bouchard

    347 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding lab notebooks to be uncorroborated where their authors could not produce witnesses to verify their contents

  4. Kridl v. Mccormick

    105 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 45 times
    Stating that corroboration is "independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony"

  5. In re Epstein

    32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 47 times
    Finding “no clear error” in the Board's fact finding that writings dated after the filing date demonstrated the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention

  6. Biogen Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research

    785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Board decisions

  7. Hahn v. Wong

    892 F.2d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 42 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Corroborating evidence must be "independent of information received from the inventor"

  8. Knorr v. Pearson

    671 F.2d 1368 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature corroborated the junior party's testimony as to actual reduction to practice in an interference proceeding

  9. Reese v. Hurst

    661 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 34 times
    In Reese v. Hurst, 211 USPQ 936, 941, 943 (CCPA 1981), our predecessor court affirmed a Board decision that a reduction to practice had occurred on the date that test results were obtained instead of on the later date when the results were conveyed to the inventor; however, the court did not explain this aspect of its decision.

  10. Squires v. Corbett

    560 F.2d 424 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a party's "right to make" a copied claim depended on whether an application's disclosure supported the full scope of the claim under § 112, ¶ 1

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,287 times   1030 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 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"

  13. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,843 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  14. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  15. Section 41.201 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.201   Cited 15 times   15 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in §§ 41.2 and 41.100 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Accord benefit means Board recognition that a patent application provides a proper constructive reduction to practice under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) . Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) , in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Section 41.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 41.8   Cited 2 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) In an appeal brief (§§ 41.37 , 41.67 , or 41.68 ) or at the initiation of a contested case (§ 41.101 ), and within 20 days of any change during the proceeding, a party must identify: (1) Its real party-in-interest, and (2) Each judicial or administrative proceeding that could affect, or be affected by, the Board proceeding. (b) For contested cases, a party seeking judicial review of a Board proceeding must file a notice with the Board of the judicial review within 20 days of the filing of the

  19. Section 41.124 - Oral argument

    37 C.F.R. § 41.124   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)Request for oral argument. A party may request an oral argument on an issue raised in a paper within five business days of the filing of the paper. The request must be filed as a separate paper and must specify the issues to be considered. (b)Copies for panel. If an oral argument is set for a panel, the movant on any issue to be argued must provide three working copies of the motion, the opposition, and the reply. Each party is responsible for providing three working copies of its exhibits relating

  20. 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