§Why CasetextPricing

55 Brake, L.L.C. v. Audi of America, Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment 55 Brake, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct

11 Cited authorities

  1. Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 674 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim

  2. Star Scientific v. R.J. Tobacco

    537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 390 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that intent may be proven circumstantially, "[b]ut such evidence must still be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement"

  3. Kingsdown Medical Consultants v. Hollister

    863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 551 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding even “ ‘gross negligence’ does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive”

  4. ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.

    159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 200 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the district court's decision not to allow a party to present a particular patent as a prior art reference at trial because that party did not produce the reference during the designated discovery period

  5. Leviton Mfg. v. Universal Sec. Instruments

    606 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that representations regarding inventorship can be material

  6. Burandt v. Dudas

    528 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Fourth Circuit law

  7. Ray v. Lehman

    55 F.3d 606 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that notices of patent maintenance fees on inside cover of the patent document issued to plaintiff and in the reminder letter mailed to plaintiff's counsel constituted sufficient notice for purposes of due process

  8. Centigram Communications Corp. v. Lehman

    862 F. Supp. 113 (E.D. Va. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    No. 94 CV 773. September 8, 1994 Ralph A. Mittelberger, Barry E. Bretschneider, Fish Richardson, Washington, DC, David A. Henderson, John E. Gartman, Jodi L. Sutton, John W. Thornburgh, Fish Richardson, Menlo Park, CA, for plaintiff. Helen F. Fahey, U.S. Atty., Dennis E. Szybala, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, VA, Nancy J. Linck, Sol., Albin F. Drost, Deputy Sol., Richard E. Schafer, Acting Associate Sol., Joseph G. Piccolo, Asst. Sol., Arlington, VA, for defendant. Anne E. Brookes, Honigman Miller

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,503 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  10. Section 41 - Patent fees; patent and trademark search systems

    35 U.S.C. § 41   Cited 99 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a showing of unavoidability to reinstate an expired patent after a lapse of more than twenty-four months

  11. Section 1.98 - Content of information disclosure statement

    37 C.F.R. § 1.98   Cited 41 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring an applicant to provide the "date" for each publication listed in an IDS