§Why CasetextPricing

EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC

OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment of Indefiniteness of the '860 Patent 273

13 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,410 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    574 U.S. 318 (2015)   Cited 1,300 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo

  3. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,256 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  4. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

    881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 545 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"

  5. Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

    514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 455 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

  6. Bell Communications v. Vitalink Communications

    55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 417 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that part-time infringement is nonetheless infringement

  7. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, LLC

    350 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 279 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "inequitable conduct, while a broader concept than fraud, must be pled with particularity"

  8. Intel Corp. v. VIA Technologies, Inc.

    319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 209 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding in a contract dispute that “the plain meaning of the word ‘required’ is the opposite of that of the word ‘optional’ ”

  9. Central v. Advanced

    482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 165 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff had Article III standing even where the government had "discretionary authority to take title" to the asserted patent because the government "ha[d] shown no interest" in doing so

  10. Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc.

    808 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 74 times
    Granting summary judgment

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,392 times   1048 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,147 times   481 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."