§Why CasetextPricing

Innovatit Seafood Systems, LLC v. Commissioner for Patents

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Summary Judgment Corrected

39 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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"

  3. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,517 times   168 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"

  4. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,152 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  5. SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.

    775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 976 times
    Holding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims

  6. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 336 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim invalid as anticipated when it claimed compounds in Markush form and a prior art reference disclosed one of the claimed compounds

  7. Scripps Clinic Research Fdn. v. Genentech

    927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 448 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such claims are not limited by the process

  8. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 469 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

  9. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 480 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

  10. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 327 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  11. 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,053 times   443 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 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"

  14. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

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