§Why CasetextPricing

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc v. Sequenom, Inc

RESPONSE

19 Cited authorities

  1. Bayer AG v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp.

    212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 358 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts can consider statements made in the ANDA to instruct their infringement analysis

  2. In re Deutsche Bank

    605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 175 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Federal Circuit law governs such matters in the patent context and applying the Rule 26 good cause standard in assessing a proposed patent prosecution bar

  3. American Piledriving Equip. v. Geoquip

    637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 93 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding disclaimer of claim scope based on arguments patent owner made during reexamination

  4. Cias, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.

    504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that argument to PTO on reexamination constituted disavowal of claim scope even though “no amendments were made”

  5. Murata Manufacturing Co. v. Bel Fuse, Inc.

    234 F.R.D. 175 (N.D. Ill. 2006)   Cited 46 times
    Enforcing protective order as to defendant's customers

  6. Xerox Corporation v. Google, Inc.

    270 F.R.D. 182 (D. Del. 2010)   Cited 31 times
    Holding the risk of inadvertent or competitive use of defendants' confidential information on reexamination is outweighed by the potential harm in denying plaintiff the full benefit of its trial counsel in reexamination

  7. F. T. C. v. Exxon Corp.

    636 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 78 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "it is very difficult for the human mind to compartmentalize and selectively suppress information once learned, no matter how well-intentioned the effort may be to do so"

  8. Kelora Sys. LLC v. Target Corp.

    No. C 11-01548 CW (LB) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011)   Cited 23 times
    Holding "the model protective order as setting forth presumptively reasonable conditions regarding the treatment of highly confidential information"

  9. MasterObjects Inc. v. Google Inc.

    No. C 11-01054 LB (N.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    No. C 11-01054 LB 07-19-2012 MASTEROBJECTS INC, Plaintiff(s), v. GOOGLE INC, Defendant(s). LAUREL BEELER ORDER RE: 6/26/12 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER ECF No. 98 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff MasterObjects, Inc. sues Defendant Google, Inc. for patent infringement. Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 92 at 2. The district court referred all discovery in this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Order, ECF No. 44 at 1. The parties submitted a discovery letter because Google seeks adjustments

  10. Avago Techs. Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. IPtronics, Inc.

    Case No.: C 10-CV-02863 EJD (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013)

    Case No.: C 10-CV-02863 EJD (PSG) 01-02-2013 AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., Plaintiff, v. IPTRONICS, INC. and IPTRONICS A/S, Defendants. PAUL S. GREWAL ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO DE-DESIGNATE AND MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (Re: Docket No. 221) On April 6, 2012, Plaintiff Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. ("Avago") filed an administrative motion to de-designate certain product samples marked highly confidential by Defendant IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics A/S

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,053 times   443 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 5,933 times   941 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 532 times   879 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  14. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 185 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  15. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  16. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 26 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"

  17. Section 42.121 - Amendment of the patent

    37 C.F.R. § 42.121   Cited 21 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that a “motion to amend claims must include a claim listing”