§Why CasetextPricing

Anticancer Inc v. Cambridge Research & Instrumentation, Inc. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Protective Order Striking Rule 30

30 Cited authorities

  1. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 3,458 times
    Holding that the Phillips exception is "expressly limited to the status of materials . . . attached to a non-dispositive motion"

  2. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,167 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,552 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  4. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg

    23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Settlement Agreement never filed with, interpreted by, or enforced in the district court is not a judicial record accessible under the right of access doctrine

  5. Rockford Memorial Corp. v. United States

    498 U.S. 920 (1990)   Cited 188 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding trial court determination that Fifth Amendment privilege cannot "be used as a shield to avoid disclosure of assets"

  6. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.

    519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 949 times
    Holding that the party opposing discovery is "required to carry a heavy burden of showing" why discovery should be denied

  7. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 338 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim invalid as anticipated when it claimed compounds in Markush form and a prior art reference disclosed one of the claimed compounds

  8. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 481 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

  9. Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp.

    732 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 368 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when "a court does not discuss certain propositions," that "does not make the decision inadequate or suggest the court failed to understand them"

  10. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac

    344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 207 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "dependent claims are presumed to be of narrower scope than the independent claims from which they depend"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,325 times   1038 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 6,104 times   469 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,970 times   984 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,920 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents