§

Schwindt et al. V. Miller et al.

09707022 - (J) (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2013)
Schwindt et al. V. Miller et al.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Pannu v. Iolab Corp.

    155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 347 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding someone an inventor, even though he had publicly disclosed his contribution more than a year prior to the collaboration, because he was "doing more than simply providing [a co-inventor] with well-known principles or explaining the state of the art; he was contributing his ideas concerning the snagresistant elements to a total inventive concept."

  2. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 337 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"

  3. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 470 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  4. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 314 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  5. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 287 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

  6. Fina Oil & Chemical Co. v. Ewen

    123 F.3d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 197 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a declaratory plaintiff may establish an actual controversy in an inventorship dispute by averring, inter alia, that it holds a "recognized interest" in a patent that could be adversely affected by a § 256 action

  7. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.

    758 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 210 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding “substantial evidence on which a reasonable jury could have found that the inventors were correctly named” despite conflicting trial testimony

  8. Chou v. University of Chicago

    254 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 113 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very patentable invention ... shall be the property of the University, and shall be assigned, as determined by the University, to the University" obligated Chou to assign her inventions to the University

  9. Sewall v. Walters

    21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 87 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventorship is a question of law

  10. Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Industries

    387 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that alleged co-inventor's § 256 claim failed where evidence showed that presentation to patentee did not contain the asserted contribution

  11. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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