60 Cited authorities

New Hampshire v. Maine
532 U.S. 742 (2001) Cited 4,545 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”
Greenfield v. Philles Records
98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 1,917 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"
W.W.W. Assocs v. Giancontieri
77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 2,208 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co.
270 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 922 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an initial “discharge of debt by a bankruptcy court, under these circumstances, is sufficient acceptance to provide a basis for judicial estoppel, even if the discharge is later vacated”
Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.
74 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 1,384 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery
Rissetto v. Plumbers Steamfitters Local 343
94 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 396 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff was judicially estopped from asserting claims based on her ability to work where she had previously received a favorable Workers' Compensation settlement based on assertions that she was unable to work
Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.
135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 337 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.
376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 248 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to be an inventor with standing to bring a section 256 claim, the alleged inventor must have "contribute[d] to the conception of the claimed invention."
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 286 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception
Fina Oil & Chemical Co. v. Ewen
123 F.3d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 197 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a declaratory plaintiff may establish an actual controversy in an inventorship dispute by averring, inter alia, that it holds a "recognized interest" in a patent that could be adversely affected by a § 256 action
Rule 32.1 - Citing Judicial Dispositions
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 Cited 34,472 times 152 Legal Analyses
Permitting court to cite to unpublished federal judicial opinions
Rule 52 - Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 Cited 26,419 times 100 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"
Rule 36 - Requests for Admission
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Cited 6,097 times 12 Legal Analyses
Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"
Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses
35 U.S.C. § 282 Cited 3,896 times 136 Legal Analyses
Granting a presumption of validity to patents
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,404 times 2192 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights
35 U.S.C. § 154 Cited 762 times 258 Legal Analyses
Granting twenty years for utility patents
Section 100 - Definitions
35 U.S.C. § 100 Cited 612 times 97 Legal Analyses
Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"
Section 261 - Ownership; assignment
35 U.S.C. § 261 Cited 427 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that patent rights are "assignable in law by an instrument in writing"
Section 116 - Inventors
35 U.S.C. § 116 Cited 340 times 23 Legal Analyses
Providing that, outside the IPR context, "the Director may permit the application to be amended" to fix inventorship errors
Section 1235 - Sale or exchange of patents
26 U.S.C. § 1235 Cited 109 times 3 Legal Analyses
Relating to sale or exchange of patents

DePuy Mitek, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.

60 Cited authorities

Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

Holding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"

Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement

Holding that an initial “discharge of debt by a bankruptcy court, under these circumstances, is sufficient acceptance to provide a basis for judicial estoppel, even if the discharge is later vacated”

Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery

Holding that a plaintiff was judicially estopped from asserting claims based on her ability to work where she had previously received a favorable Workers' Compensation settlement based on assertions that she was unable to work

Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"

Holding that, to be an inventor with standing to bring a section 256 claim, the alleged inventor must have "contribute[d] to the conception of the claimed invention."

Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

Holding that a declaratory plaintiff may establish an actual controversy in an inventorship dispute by averring, inter alia, that it holds a "recognized interest" in a patent that could be adversely affected by a § 256 action

Permitting court to cite to unpublished federal judicial opinions

Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"

Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Granting twenty years for utility patents

Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

Holding that patent rights are "assignable in law by an instrument in writing"

Providing that, outside the IPR context, "the Director may permit the application to be amended" to fix inventorship errors

Relating to sale or exchange of patents