33 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,142 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,254 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,092 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
United States v. Diebold, Inc.
369 U.S. 654 (1962) Cited 11,294 times
Holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised
Price v. Symsek
988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 312 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 285 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception
Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 245 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"
Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. LTD
927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 271 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "at least about" was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent
Eibel Co. v. Paper Co.
261 U.S. 45 (1923) Cited 518 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the oral testimony of prior public use "falls short of being enough to overcome the presumption of novelty from the granting of the patent" when "there is not a single written record, letter or specification of prior date to [the patentee's] application that discloses any such discovery by anyone. . . ."
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
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,055 times 446 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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,937 times 944 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. USA

33 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised

Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

Holding that the term "at least about" was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent

Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"