§Why CasetextPricing

Innovatit Seafood Systems, LLC v. Commissioner for Patents

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

37 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 18,858 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  2. Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n

    383 U.S. 607 (1966)   Cited 3,542 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

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,156 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

    256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 661 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

  5. American Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson

    269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 527 times
    Holding that relief on an APA claim "normally will be a vacatur of the agency's order"

  6. In re Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 511 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  7. Burke v. Gould

    286 F.3d 513 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 351 times
    Holding that removal of supervisory duties from a "supervisory computer systems analyst" raised a fact dispute sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment

  8. 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

  9. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 324 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  10. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach

    731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,129 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 20,463 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,940 times   953 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. 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