§

Sun et al. V. KUMAR et al.

13576534 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)
Sun et al. V. KUMAR et al.

22 Cited authorities

  1. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 340 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."

  2. Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis

    448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 87 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where “accessible literature sources clearly provided” a description of the teachings at issue, the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference

  3. Agilent Tech. v. Affymetrix

    567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 49 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's holding that an applicant's written description was adequate because the court erred in its claim construction

  4. DeGeorge v. Bernier

    768 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that "resort to the specification is necessary only when there are ambiguities inherent in the claim language or obvious from arguments of counsel"

  5. Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

    746 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding claims required separate and distinct matrices based on a prosecution history statement

  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. In re King

    801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure

  8. Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co.

    837 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2015–1662 2015–1663 09-20-2016 Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Plaintiff–Appellant v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, Defendant–Appellee Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Defendant–Appellant Matthew Nielsen, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant/defendant-appellant. Also represented by Kevin M. Flowers, Amanda Antons; Roger L. Browdy, Ronni Jillions, Browdy and Neimark PLLC, Washington, DC. James Richard Ferguson

  9. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,611 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

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

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,581 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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. Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 402   Cited 6,963 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Stating that relevant evidence is generally admissible at trial

  13. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 times   479 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."

  14. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  15. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,322 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  16. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,995 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  17. Rule 1002 - Requirement of the Original

    Fed. R. Evid. 1002   Cited 1,128 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required"

  18. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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