§Why CasetextPricing

Golden Bridge Technology Inc v. Apple Inc et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity

18 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,569 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,187 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips

    363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 326 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an expert's unsupported and conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

  4. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 473 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  5. Martek Biosciences v. Nutrinova

    579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 218 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that circumstantial evidence, in lieu of direct testing, was sufficient to prove infringement

  6. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 177 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  7. Singh v. Brake

    317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times
    Ruling that a laboratory notebook entry did not corroborate an alleged conception because "[e]ven if the entry expressed the problem, it did not provide the solution"

  8. Coleman v. Dines

    754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 96 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.

  9. Environ Products, Inc. v. Furon Co.

    215 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the patent in question was copending with the application involved in the interference, the burden of the proof on a party challenging validity is merely a preponderance of the evidence

  10. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science

    261 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding diligence finding where record showed “activity in every month during the critical period”

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,516 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,165 times   492 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"