§Why CasetextPricing

HITACHI KOKI CO., LTD. v. DUKAS

MOTION for Summary Judgment

41 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,991 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 216,978 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. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 113,466 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  4. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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"

  5. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 18,889 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  6. Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n

    383 U.S. 607 (1966)   Cited 3,548 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even if two inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency's interpretation may be supported by substantial evidence

  7. Camp v. Pitts

    411 U.S. 138 (1973)   Cited 1,967 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the focal point for judicial review" of whether agency action is arbitrary and capricious "should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court"

  8. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  9. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  10. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 165 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,861 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 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,510 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  13. Section 701 - Application; definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 701   Cited 9,405 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition given in Section 551

  14. Section 1295 - Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    28 U.S.C. § 1295   Cited 8,334 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to the Federal Circuit over cases arising from executive agency board of contract appeals

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 times   459 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."

  16. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,416 times   2199 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."

  17. Section 145 - Civil action to obtain patent

    35 U.S.C. § 145   Cited 504 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting 60 days within which to file for District Court review of the PTO's decision

  18. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 464 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  19. Section 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    35 U.S.C. § 141   Cited 454 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Imposing no such requirement

  20. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 308 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting addition of "new matter"

  21. Section 1.111 - Reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action

    37 C.F.R. § 1.111   Cited 86 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Regarding Application No. 15/892, 603

  22. Section 1.104 - Nature of examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.104   Cited 52 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Providing reasons for patent examiner's rejection of claims, including rejection for prior art "unless the entire rights to the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the same person . . ."

  23. Section 1.176 - Examination of reissue

    37 C.F.R. § 1.176   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) A reissue application will be examined in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional application, and will be subject to all the requirements of the rules related to non-reissue applications. Applications for reissue will be acted on by the examiner in advance of other applications. (b) Restriction between subject matter of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed subject matter may be required (restriction involving only subject matter of the original patent claims will not

  24. Section 1.178 - Original patent; continuing duty of applicant

    37 C.F.R. § 1.178   Cited 17 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring an offer to surrender the original patent or statement that the original is lost or inaccessible to initiate reissue proceedings

  25. Section 1.113 - Final rejection or action

    37 C.F.R. § 1.113   Cited 12 times   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) On the second or any subsequent examination or consideration by the examiner the rejection or other action may be made final, whereupon applicant's, or for ex parte reexaminations filed under § 1.510 , patent owner's reply is limited to appeal in the case of rejection of any claim (§ 41.31 of this title), or to amendment as specified in § 1.114 or § 1.116 . Petition may be taken to the Director in the case of objections or requirements not involved in the rejection of any claim (§ 1.181 ). Reply

  26. Section 1.197 - Termination of proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.197   Cited 6 times

    (a) Proceedings on an application are considered terminated by the dismissal of an appeal or the failure to timely file an appeal to the court or a civil action except: (1) Where claims stand allowed in an application; or (2) Where the nature of the decision requires further action by the examiner. (b) The date of termination of proceedings on an application is the date on which the appeal is dismissed or the date on which the time for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or