47 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 235,866 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"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,014 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"
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
517 U.S. 370 (1996) Cited 5,344 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical
520 U.S. 17 (1997) Cited 1,694 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.
535 U.S. 722 (2002) Cited 810 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 5,120 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)."
Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.
339 U.S. 605 (1950) Cited 1,513 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence
Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com
289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 646 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"
Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University
212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 372 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”
Medical Instr. and Diagnostics v. Elekta
344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 324 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred in finding that defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact on obvious; noting, inter alia , that "[defendant's] expert's declaration quotes from several prior art articles that expressly discuss the combination of stereotaxy with computer imaging technologies"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,220 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,265 times 1021 Legal Analyses
Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
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"
Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses
35 U.S.C. § 282 Cited 3,892 times 132 Legal Analyses
Granting a presumption of validity to patents

DePuy Mitek, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.

47 Cited authorities

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"

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"

Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

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)."

Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Granting a presumption of validity to patents