§

Voglewede V. Lee et al. V. Lee et al.

12339424 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)
Voglewede V. Lee et al. V. Lee et al.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.

    424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 177 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Supreme Court's "ready for patenting test" set forth in Pfaff, a case concerning § 102(b)'s on-sale bar, "applies to the public use bar under § 102(b)"

  2. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  3. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  4. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.

    220 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Permitting four new experts to testify despite the fact that none of them had offered any testimony by declaration, affidavit, or otherwise during proceedings at the PTO

  5. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  6. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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