§Why CasetextPricing

DePuy Mitek, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment of Infringement and No Inequitable Conduct

35 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,142 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 216,254 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. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,127 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

  4. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 502 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  5. Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems

    917 F.2d 544 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 389 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for officers "to be personally liable for [their employer's] infringement under section 271, there must be evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil"

  6. Avia Group International, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.

    853 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 364 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parties moving for summary judgment bear burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute

  7. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories

    429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 202 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a witness's conclusory assertion that the evidence demonstrated "conception, diligence and reduction to practice" did not carry a party's burden on summary judgment

  8. 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"

  9. 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"

  10. Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky Farms Inc.

    140 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements in the written description touting the ability of the patented invention to overcome disadvantages in the prior art "strongly suggest, if not mandate, judgment in [the defendant's favor]" where the accused products suffered the very same disadvantages

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,637 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,039 times   1047 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 212 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"

  14. Section 1.56 - Duty to disclose information material to patentability

    37 C.F.R. § 1.56   Cited 848 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Adopting broad standard of materiality requiring that information not be cumulative

  15. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.142   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in a single application, the examiner in an Office action will require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect an invention to which the claims will be restricted, this official action being called a requirement for restriction (also known as a requirement for division). Such requirement will normally be made before any action on the merits; however, it may be made at any time before final action. (b) Claims to the invention