§Why CasetextPricing

Arrow International, Inc. et al v. Spire Biomedical, Inc.,

Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

14 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,698 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 215,883 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.

    334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,174 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous

  4. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.

    392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 132 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that licenses "may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record" (quoting In re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) )

  5. North American Container v. Plastipak Pack

    415 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that recapture rule applied to reissued claims that had been “enlarged” and were not “materially narrowed in other respects”

  6. Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc.

    336 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 97 times
    Finding that the party seeking to invalidate a claim as indefinite must show by clear and convincing evidence that one skilled in the art would not understand the scope of the claim when read in light of the specification

  7. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 327,983 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  8. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,889 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  9. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 592 times   107 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  10. Section 122 - Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications

    35 U.S.C. § 122   Cited 171 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Providing that with certain exceptions, "each application for a patent shall be published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title."

  11. Section 1.137 - Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution

    37 C.F.R. § 1.137   Cited 55 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Revival on the basis of unintentional delay. If the delay in reply by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to revive an abandoned application or a reexamination prosecution terminated under § 1.550(d) or § 1.957(b) or limited under § 1.957(c) . (b)Petition requirements. A grantable petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by: (1) The reply required to the outstanding Office action or notice, unless previously filed; (2) The

  12. Section 1.213 - Nonpublication request

    37 C.F.R. § 1.213   Cited 5 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Including a certificate that the application will not be filed abroad

  13. Section 1.1 - Addresses for non-trademark correspondence with the United States Patent and Trademark Office

    37 C.F.R. § 1.1   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)In general. Except for correspondence submitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system in accordance with § 1.6(a)(4) , all correspondence intended for the USPTO must be addressed to either "Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450" or to specific areas within the Office as provided in this section. When appropriate, correspondence should also be marked for the attention of a particular office

  14. Section 1.451 - The priority claim and priority document in an international application

    37 C.F.R. § 1.451   Cited 1 times
    Stating that a patent application receives a priority date of an earlier filed national or international application