KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,523 times 180 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
In re Gartside
203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 511 times 15 Legal AnalysesHolding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals
339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 337 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding a claim invalid as anticipated when it claimed compounds in Markush form and a prior art reference disclosed one of the claimed compounds
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Ben Venue Labs
246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 273 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding preamble language non-limiting in method of treatment claims containing two steps, the second of which was administering a compound
Pharmastem v. Viacell
491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 199 times 6 Legal AnalysesFinding that "none of [the activities governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)] refer to the provision of a service."
W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock
721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 324 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"
Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Serv., Inc.
290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 178 times 3 Legal AnalysesUpholding district court's construction of a term based on purpose of the invention and disputed term's use within the specification.
Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.
432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 147 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a prior-art reference anticipated claims 1-4 and 7, but not claims 8, 9, and 13, because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation
Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated
190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 159 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized
In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation
301 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 137 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that preamble was limiting in light of arguments made during prosecution "show[ing] a clear reliance by the patentee on the preamble to persuade the Patent Office that the claimed invention is not anticipated by the prior art"
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,065 times 461 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,945 times 960 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,418 times 2200 Legal AnalysesDefining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 100 - Definitions
35 U.S.C. § 100 Cited 613 times 97 Legal AnalysesDefining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"
Section 145 - Civil action to obtain patent
35 U.S.C. § 145 Cited 504 times 132 Legal AnalysesGranting 60 days within which to file for District Court review of the PTO's decision