§
Xencor, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 392 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the best mode does not extend to unclaimed, non-novel subject matter

  2. In re Kubin

    561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 137 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

  3. Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

    764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 48 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a claim construction that was supported by the intrinsic evidence and the inventor's testimony

  4. General Foods v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle

    972 F.2d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one claim is "patentably distinct" from another if the differences between them are such that the subject matter of one would not have been obvious over the subject matter of the other

  5. In re Hubbell

    709 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 33 times   6 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1547. 2013-03-7 In re Jeffrey HUBBELL, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall. Rivka D. Monheit, Pabst Patent Group LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Patrea L. Pabst. Frances M. Lynch, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Amy J. Nelson, Associate Solicitor. O'MALLEY Rivka D. Monheit, Pabst Patent Group LLP, of Atlanta

  6. Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.

    753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 31 times   31 Legal Analyses
    In Gilead, we recognized that use of issuance date alone, post-URAA, to determine whether a patent was invalid for ODP had "several shortcomings."

  7. In re Metoprolol Succinate

    494 F.3d 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding obvious a claim on a "compound" in light of "an earlier claim on a composition comprised of compound, inner layer (B), and outer layer (C)" where "the composition of the earlier patent claim includes the compound of the later patent claim in its entirety"

  8. Application of Ruschig

    379 F.2d 990 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 75 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the written description requirement is a requirement separate from enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1

  9. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 782 times   278 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  10. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 218 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  12. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  13. Section 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 52 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  16. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and