27 Cited authorities

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 29,432 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 694 times 17 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
Trustmark Insurance v. General & Cologne Life Re of America
424 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2005) Cited 310 times
Finding that a party "failed to show good cause for its failure to amend . . . [because the party] "was, or should have been, aware of the facts underlying [the amendment]" well before the deadline to amend had passed.
Digital Control v. Charles Mach. Works
437 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 194 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that omissions and misstatements are material if "a reasonable examiner would have considered such [information] important in deciding whether to allow the . . . application"
Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.
122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 244 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that under § 103, "an invention, A’, that is obvious in view of subject matter A, derived from another, is also unpatentable. The obvious invention, A’, may not be unpatentable to the inventor of A, and it may not be unpatentable to a third party who did not receive the disclosure of A, but it is unpatentable to the party who did receive the disclosure" and thus that "subject matter derived from another not only is itself unpatentable to the party who derived it under § 102(f), but, when combined with other prior art, may make a resulting obvious invention unpatentable to that party under a combination of §§ 102(f) and 103."
U.S. v. Caremark
496 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 171 times
Holding complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) because the relators "d[id] not present any evidence at an individualized transaction level"
Baxter International, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc.
149 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 204 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work
Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Mosey
476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 149 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Walker Process claimant must meet "higher threshold showings of both materiality and intent than are required to show inequitable conduct."
King v. Cooke
26 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 192 times
Upholding decision permitting the amendment of an answer that inadvertently included admissions, even when the motion was filed three years after the original answers were filed; the non-movant was not prejudiced by the amendment since he had not relied on the answers
GFI, Inc. v. Franklin Corp.
265 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 151 times
Holding that waiver of privileged information is not a substantive patent law issue and regional circuit law applies
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 93,618 times 92 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Cited 34,992 times 55 Legal Analyses
Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,013 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 1.56 - Duty to disclose information material to patentability
37 C.F.R. § 1.56 Cited 858 times 68 Legal Analyses
Adopting broad standard of materiality requiring that information not be cumulative

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated v. International Securities Exchange, LLC

27 Cited authorities

Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

Finding that a party "failed to show good cause for its failure to amend . . . [because the party] "was, or should have been, aware of the facts underlying [the amendment]" well before the deadline to amend had passed.

Holding that omissions and misstatements are material if "a reasonable examiner would have considered such [information] important in deciding whether to allow the . . . application"

Holding complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) because the relators "d[id] not present any evidence at an individualized transaction level"

Finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work

Holding that a Walker Process claimant must meet "higher threshold showings of both materiality and intent than are required to show inequitable conduct."

Upholding decision permitting the amendment of an answer that inadvertently included admissions, even when the motion was filed three years after the original answers were filed; the non-movant was not prejudiced by the amendment since he had not relied on the answers

Holding that waiver of privileged information is not a substantive patent law issue and regional circuit law applies

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Adopting broad standard of materiality requiring that information not be cumulative