33 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 199,053 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial court shall grant a motion for summary judgment if there is no genuine issue for trial
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 184,323 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute of material fact on a motion for summary judgment
  3. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 96,551 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an opponent of summary judgment "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."
  4. United States v. Diebold, Inc.

    369 U.S. 654 (1962)   Cited 10,162 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
  5. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 277 times   3 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."
  6. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 256 times   9 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
  7. Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 229 times   1 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"
  8. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. LTD

    927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 259 times   3 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
  9. Eibel Co. v. Paper Co.

    261 U.S. 45 (1923)   Cited 509 times   5 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. . . ."
  10. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 127 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration
  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 5,400 times   340 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."
  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,382 times   719 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"