§Why CasetextPricing

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. USA

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment '094 Patent Claims are not Invalid for Prior Inventorship

13 Cited authorities

  1. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.

    381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,908 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims are not "presumed" to be restricted to the embodiments disclosed in the specification

  2. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 149 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  3. Altoona Theatres v. Tri-Ergon Corp.

    294 U.S. 477 (1935)   Cited 238 times
    In Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc., v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 481 et seq., 55 S.Ct. 455, 456, 79 L.Ed. 1005, it appears that the patent there held to be invalid in certain claims because the feature of the fly-wheel was added by the disclaimer, fully described and disclosed the use of the fly-wheel in the specifications.

  4. Smith v. Snow

    294 U.S. 1 (1935)   Cited 223 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the claim were fairly susceptible to two constructions, that should be adopted which will secure to the patentee his actual invention"

  5. Coca-Cola Co. v. Overland, Inc.

    692 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 101 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lay witness affidavits were "too speculative and insubstantial" to establish a genuine dispute of material fact

  6. Fleming v. Escort Inc.

    774 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 34 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding sufficient corroboration although "none of the corroborating evidence constitute[d] definitive proof of [the inventor’s] account or disclose[d] each claim limitation as written" because "the corroboration requirement has never been so demanding"

  7. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Oyj

    841 F.3d 954 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reviewing Board's hearsay finding in IPR proceeding under abuse of discretion

  8. Hitzeman v. Rutter

    243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 23 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting “conception” of invention based on later-discovered inherent property

  9. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. v. Emcure Pharms. Ltd.

    Civil Action No. 18-2065 (SRC) (Consolidated) (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Civil Action No. 18-2065 (SRC) (Consolidated) Civil Action No. 18-2620 (SRC) 10-05-2018 SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO., LTD. et al., Plaintiffs, v. EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED et al., Defendants. SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO., LTD. et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. et al., Defendants. CHESLER, U.S.D.J. OPINION & ORDER CHESLER , U.S.D.J. This matter comes before the Court on the application for claim construction by Plaintiffs Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma

  10. OKA v. YOUSSEFYEH

    849 F.2d 581 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 27 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Oka, even under the preponderant evidence standard, the junior party could not prove prior invention by presenting a range of dates that primarily predated but overlapped by one day with the senior party's conception date.

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,938 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"