§

Spruce Biosciences, Inc.

PGR2021-00088 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2021)
Spruce Biosciences, Inc.

26 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,879 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.

    535 U.S. 722 (2002)   Cited 823 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

  3. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 877 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that after initial examination the claim in suit “[did] not necessarily require” that a surgical device be “pleated” but that arguments made during reexamination constituted a “clear disclaimer of scope” requiring “pleating”

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

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 615 times   78 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]”

  5. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 508 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  6. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S

    108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 351 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement

  7. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 345 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  8. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  9. Koito Manufacturing Co., v. Turn-Key-Tech

    381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 144 times
    Holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it "failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that reference met the limitations of the claims"

  10. Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.

    759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 106 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Upholding jury verdict of invalidity for lack of adequate written description because the pharmaceutical patents did not describe representative examples “to support the full scope of the claims”

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,965 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 378 times   633 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 325 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 325   Cited 44 times   251 Legal Analyses

    (a) INFRINGER'S CIVIL ACTION.- (1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.-A post-grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.-If the petitioner or real party in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner

  16. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"